text:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams

Additional comments
Material copied from Requests for Arbitration:

Something needs to be done about this, because CheeseDreams continues to edit without any regard for discussions. The word koan has once more been added to Jesus, showing that CheeseDreams has no intention of respecting the community. Se has also restored and repopulated Category:Bible stories after an 80% vote to delete. -- 01:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with Eequor. Despite the fact that numerous editors have objected to the insertion of a sentence on koans at Talk:Jesus, CheeseDreams has twice inserted the sentence while entering completely misleading edit summaries.   This is exactly the kind of behavior that breaks down trust among all editors and damages the ability of this project to achieve its goals. Jwrosenzweig 00:39, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Caveat to Jwrosenzweig statement - Note that the sentence in question (which is an NPOV sentence - "some people think that ....", which is true - I can name at least 1) was proposed by an outside editor to solve the edit war, and accepted by both sides. However, one of my attackers suddenly appeared at the article and instructed the "other side"

not to compromise. Further they insisted that compromise would not be tolerated. CheeseDreams 22:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Factual correction to SIrubenstein statement - I did not revert any of SIrubenstein's edits as claimed. I asked for comment (RFC) on the two versions, as I had no interest in a revert war. FT2 01:03, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

I want to echo the phrase "something needs to be done about this". CD is methodically using wiki features to confuse and obfuscate. Boatloads of personhours are being wasted. In addition to requests above by Showspinner and Slrubenstein, other specifics listed at Requests_for_comment/CheeseDreams should be considered in the Arbitration. Case should be expedited as the frustration factor is high and a number of valuable editors, I believe, are nearing the alienation point. JDG 06:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I would propose an IP ban, as the most effective way to be rid of sen disregard for Wikiquette. --[[User:Eequor| ᓛᖁ  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]] [ ᑐ ]]] 22:19, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I would propose Eequor reads Civility, where it states that calling for a ban is a serious abuse of wikipedia policy. CheeseDreams 22:23, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams continues to make thinly-veiled personal attacks; see. -- 22:14, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Caveat to Eequor statement - See the title of the section that edit was made in, and the nature of the "discussion", i.e. "YOU MUST DO THIS OR ELSE". I think the comparison is fair and accurate. CheeseDreams 22:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment by HistoryBuffEr
Why is this RFAr being so warmly and hastily accepted:
 * Even though the submitters have not even mentioned any attempts of dispute resolution, while
 * That you wrote this simply reveals that you did not read my complaint. Slrubenstein
 * Indeed. We went through an attempted mediation. There's also been an RFC, and many attempts at direct communication. john k 18:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr 07:38, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
 * The RFAr right below (Quadell) was quickly rejected by 5 arbs for ostensibly not having attempted dispute resolution (even though the RFAr below does specifically mention dispute resolution attempts and futility of further attempts.)

Comment by Mpolo
My tendency is to feel that reaching arbitration is an utter failure of the system, but sadly, it appears to be the correct step at this point. I have been involved in a large number of pages with CheeseDreams, generally in dispute with her. When it is more or less "one on one", she shows a certain amount of give and take, and we can actually work on writing an encyclopedia. However, the moment she is outnumbered, she seems to get extremely defensive, won't move from her point of view a millimeter, and tries other (generally disruptive) methods of getting her way. She is generally very reluctant to name particular sources, so that her contributions are very often of the form "Some scholars think...", "Some scholars think...", etc. She ignores requests to pinpoint that "some".

In response to the allegation of HistoryBuffEr that there has been no attempt at dispute resolution, I would point out the many comments on her Talk: page, at least 3 RFCs on Cultural and historical background of Jesus, a specific RFC on CheeseDreams herself, an informal mediation by FT2, and a formal mediation (between Slrubenstein and CheeseDreams/Amgine) that died before I even knew it was going on (Cheese rejected the mediator as non-neutral). Mpolo 08:22, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * I rejected the mediator AFTER the mediator took sides, this action by the mediator irritating Amgine so much that Amgine has been neither seen nor heard since.
 * The RFC on me is demonstrably petty
 * The comments on my talk page you mention hardly count as dispute resolution - if you look, they are all "WE ARE RIGHT, do what we say" sorts of comments.
 * "Some scholars" - I would prefer not to have to write it at all, but when I did that, people went "oh, thats original research", and deleted the whole of the changes. I prefer to refer people to the bibliography, after all, thats what its there fore. Constantly going "X thinks, Y thinks, Z thinks" makes an article poorly readable, see Byron it isn't full of "X thinks that Byron went to Greece", "Y thinks they may have had a sexual relationship", for example CheeseDreams 21:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The point is when it is a disputed fact, we need to identify who is supporting the point of view being presented. For instance, if I am writing about Biblical Archeology and cite Thiede as my authority, the reader can look at Thiede's other theories and see that he tends to be a little "out there" (which doesn't mean he is right or wrong, but he tends to be out of the mainstream), and the reader should be able to take that into account. Similarly, if the only support for an argument that Jesus spoke in koans were from a nineteenth-century Zen master who also believed that George Washington was secretly a Japanese Ninja, doesn't the reader deserve to know that? (hypothetical example, obviously) When it's the majority or the majority of some identifiable group, it's enough to state that. Thus, if I want to state that the Gospel of Mark was written in 45, I am forced to cite Thiede or O'Callahan or the like, while if I want to cite it as written shortly before 70, I can just say that "scholarly consensus" supports that date. That's what I'm asking for when I complain about "some scholars". Mpolo 09:15, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

 * And Byron having a gay relationship with a greek boy isnt a disputed fact? CheeseDreams 14:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * As the article is written, the reader would assume that it is undisputed that Byron met and had an emotional relationship with a Greek boy. If this is disputed, then, yes, it should be credited with who has this theory. The "sexual relationship" is prefaced by a possibly, which is probably enough, given the context of a proven (according to the article) emotional relationship with the boy. The reader can imagine that any number of persons would suggest that connection without having to name names. On the other hand, the theory that Jesus was actually an amalgamation of Dionysus, Osirus, and Mithras is sufficiently non-mainstream (as is the theory that the Gospel of Mark was written in 45, to which I tend to be sympathetic, if skeptical) that the source of the argument needs to be identified. Mpolo 09:06, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Comment by --Alterego

 * Implying that someone is a Nazi should be reason enough in itself.
 * I believe you mean Achtung, darling. CheeseDreams 21:35, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * --Alterego 22:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * It would be more accurate to state that I was implying someone was acting like a Nazi. CheeseDreams 22:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment by CheeseDreams (which is bound to be drowned out by responses to it)
Given the nature of some of my edits, stating that academics actually have doubt about the validity of the bible, or of Jesus' historicity, it seems to me that in order to achieve a fair hearing those arbitrators who take on this case would most likely have to be non-Christian.

Since Wikipedia is currently dominated by American editors, and America has a high proportion of Christian editors, I suspect that this would prove somewhat difficult to implement. Nethertheless, if it is possible (for I know not the credes of the Arbitration comittee), then I ask that it be done.

CheeseDreams 22:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I take offense at CheeseDreams' allegation that no Christian arbitrator would possibly be able to hear her case fairly. I would respectfully ask that the arbitrators be selected using the normal wikipedia selection procedures, without regard to their religion, race, sex, or nationality. Wesley 01:15, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * When one perceives one is being harrassed/attacked on religious grounds, is it any wonder one would request a non-religious jury? In fact, a reasonable case could be made that your restatement of CheeseDreams' allegation is a fair statement of the facts.
 * On the other hand, the ArbCom has procedures for determining who will be involved in a case. It's not appropriate (nor likely possible) to ask the ArbCom to discriminate on the basis of religion. - Amgine 03:59, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Amgine's comment
I am, frankly, appalled by this entire RfA. I do not know when I have seen a more poorly managed complaint, not to mention a more long-standing feud in which a user was subject to more abuses of administrative abilities without intervention or comment by other admins.

On at least two occasions, that I know of, admins engaged in a revert war with this user reverted and locked the page in question. On many occasions this user has been the subject of uncivil behaviour by admins. I'm sure if I began digging I would find further administrative abuses.

These admins are acting more like a lynch mob than cool and reasoned editors.

I have recused myself from the POVioring at Cultural and historical background of Jesus primarily because of the inability of this group to follow Wikipedia processes, policies and guidelines. I feel User:CheeseDreams has an abrasive, confrontational style of editing shared by others at Wikipedia, but has been targeted for stalking, harrassment, and personal attacks by an identifiable group. I have brought up elements of the case several times with admins; and before they know who the participants are they have unanimously agreed the admins involved are breaking wikipedia policies - but once they know who is involved they have chosen to not become involved.

Frankly, I've sharply cut back my involvement in Wikipedia due to this unchecked behaviour. I've observed this user going from an over-eager contributor to an embattled and defensive new user, and I completely sympathize. I do not foresee a positive outcome to this RfA.

- Amgine 02:38, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment by Dr Zen
CheeseDreams is no angel but he/she has been sorely pressed by another side that has shown a flagrant disregard for the norms of Wikipedia. I have no doubt that CheeseDreams deserves censure at this point, but had he/she been more sensitively handled by the editors he/she is dealing with here, this feud would never have grown to this proportion. I can only agree with Amgine that a keen contributor was embittered by his/her experience here. Yes, CD is rather confrontational, but I have certainly found in my short time here that, particularly on controversial topics, confrontation is the norm, and abrasive, unpleasant editors proliferate. It frankly astonishes me to see some of the names confronting him/her. How they have the nerve to complain about others is beyond me! CD's greatest sin, it seems, is that he/she did not parrot the policies of Wikipedia while disregarding them. If he/she had known the game better, he/she could, like her accusers, have left peremptory comments on their pages demanding "Don't make personal attacks" and claimed that this was resolving the dispute. I wholly endorse the comments by Amgine about the behaviour of admins here. I further note that several other admins gave licence to some of that behaviour by stating that it was perfectly all right to breach the policy in the pursuit of an edit war, instead of censuring the admin involved. None of the parties tried to find a true consensus that I can see, and I can certainly see why CD would feel ganged up on, particularly with the rallying to join in the RfC. Frankly, I believe the best solution would be to bar all parties involved from articles in any way connected with Jesus for a couple of weeks, and for those who believe that Wikipedia's policies are worthwhile to spend more time trying to convince all the parties of that and less on petty disputes and crusades to victimise editors they do not agree with, because there are no good guys here. I fear that the sentiment against CheeseDreams will lead to his/her being singled out and made a victim, though. Dr Zen 23:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment by Filiocht
I have to say I find this whole thing rather disturbing. While I agree that CheeseDreams is being rather abrasive, I sense that the main driver here is an attempt by Christians to keep perfectly valid material that points to Christ as a mythological figure in the tradition of life-death-rebirth deities out of the article on the Historicity of Jesus. There's more that one POV being flaunted here, and because the Christian caucus is well organised, they seem to be able to drown out opposition pretty effectively. The fact that this is going on at all is leading me to consider withdrawing from the project altogether. In the meantime, I fully endorse Dr Zen's proposal above. Ban them all for a while, let them cool down, and remember that Wikipedia should, and must, not privilege any world-view, religious, political or philosophical, over any other if it is to be what it says it wants to be. Filiocht 11:12, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * On reflection, (and thanks to User:Jwrosenzweig), I would like to state that I now do not believe that there is an actual Christian caucus at work here. However, I find it all too easy to believe that CD may well think that there is. Filiocht 16:16, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * Alas, the reason Cheesedreams believes there is a Christian caucus at work is, whenever someone challenges Cheesedreams, she claims that the challenger is a Christian fundamentalist. Slrubenstein 19:03, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Noel
I am unfamiliar with the details of the points under debate, but I do think there are problems with both sides. E.g. what's the problem with likening some of Jesus' sayings to koans? The whole point of a koan is to open your mind to a new point of view; seem pretty apropos to me.

My main comment is that I'm appalled at the amount of time and energy being wasted here, both by the direct participants, and those who are called in to adjudicate. Because of experience in a past 'life' I'm particularly sensitive to the strain this is putting on the latter. These people are volunteers doing a thankless job, who have limited time and energy, and the rate at which new flamage is being generated make it quadruply hard to figure out what the dickens is going on here. If y'all would just be quiet for a while, everyone would be better off.

 * You hit the nail on the head. What on earth is the problem with likening some of Jesus's sayings to koans? They are on the face of it very much like them! It really does look at a lot like motivated editors have tried to suppress a POV, rather than convince its holder to change their views. Dr Zen 23:30, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I have no problem saying that some people believe Jesus' sayings resemble koans. However, simply saying that he taught using koans (as one version of the edit did) is very different. It presumes that Jesus (a) knew what a koan was, which would have to presume his Godly omniscience given the absence of Zen masters in the first century Roman empire; (b) was attempting to bring his listener's to Enlightenment, that being the purpose of a koan. That second would further presume that Jesus had something like a Buddhist concept of Enlightenment, even though he was raised as a Jew and there were no Buddhists around. Doesn't that make any sense at all to you? On the other hand, today in the 21st century it's not so unusual to find people who have read at least some koans and at least some of Jesus' teachings, and of these, some who see a similarity between them. This is far more plausible than the blithe claim that Jesus deliberately used koans in the first century. Wesley 04:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * If you notice, only the original edit said koans were used. The insertion by me after revert war 1 was in accordance with "some people think..", the compromise suggested by Andrevan and accepted by me and a few others. Dr Zen further modified this and made it even less "this is the case".
 * However, a POV caucus proceeded to remove the mention all together. I restored it to Dr Zen's version. A revert war ensued.
 * It seems as if even the statement "absolutely no-one on earth, not even a single lone editor, thinks Jesus and koans have anything at all, not even remotely, to do with each other" would be unacceptable. CheeseDreams 20:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * P.s. Wesley, It is POV to assert that Jesus did not have something like a Buddhist concept of Enlightenment.

 * Especially when the Gnostics did, and that there is a very good argument that the original Christians (e.g. Paul) were gnostic rather than literalist. Especially with the massive evidence of attempts to supress this (e.g. Historiography of the Pauline Epistles, 3 Corinthians) CheeseDreams 20:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment by FT2
I have been quite heavily involved with the CheeseDreams-SIrubenstein dispute, to the extent of acting for a month as informal arbitrator in one of their disputes. Although at various times one or the other has worried I was "taking sides", I consider myself neutral but informed in their differences. This is my attempt to describe how I see it.

Like a lot of situations, both of the two main parties (CheeseDreams and SIrubenstein) have good points and weaknesses. I see the problems spreading out from these two individuals. In other words, save for these two, such a long winded dispute would probably never have arisen, and others would not have gotten involved. So I feel strongly the heart of this is to decide how to handle these two individuals, figure out which of them has done what, and then work outwards to any others involved.

In overview, both have acted rationally at times, and unhelpfully at others. CheeseDreams has acted in a manner intended to annoy and provoke at times, and in this, people who comment on her are accurate. SIrubenstein has favoured his own view of research and validity a little too much and cut others off without sufficient respect for their views and appreciation of the points they were making. (I was one, but I exclude myself, Im thinking of "in general" to keep it impersonal). Both have at times "risen to the bait" and posted lengthy debates to "prove" points to rebut points which contradict points which were misread and replied to by points... which as others have noted is a serious drain on goodwill.

As a result both have at times lost the point that this is an encyclopedia, not a forum for personal disputes. In addition both fight across a broad range of issues in thrusts and parrys, never resolving much and always going back to re-open issues which were almost closed before. As a result there are always 15 or so items open and long threads of interjected stuff with parrying and thrusts and counter attacks on each of them at any one time. I am going to discuss both. (The choice of "who first" is not relevant, nothing should be read into it).

CheeseDreams when feeling attacked, rises to the bait hard. She attacks back, writes a lot of excess wordage, uses condescending language top cut others down, and picks on unimportant flaws in others POV or unfortunate wordings to score points and seek to get apologies for. This is very antagonistic behaviour. She has said she is unable to focus on one thing at a time because thats not how her mind works. She looks for alliances when under attack, and I sadly do feel it would not be not inaccurate to say that she does try too quickly to see things and place others "with me or against me" at times, at some cost to the smooth flow of wikipedia. I dont have a problem with the RFCs, just that she might have sorted some out without tying up others' limited time by seeking to get people "on her side".

SIrubenstein is in many ways different. He is more prone to a different kind of problem, and in some ways harder to pin down. He lacks an appreciation that often, his view (even if supported by his profound knowledge of reference material) is still only one view. That information which is sourced from less perfect sources or less eloquent contributors still has a place, and he overlooks that knowledge is a team game, others ways of thinking though not so academically sound perhaps, should not be overruled, because often the heart of lay-wisdom is not insignificant. He needs to learn that you cannot lead by force, or by demand, you have to carry others with you, and work together. Even having a group who support you is not enough, you have to avoid making others feel ignored or slighted (not always easy). Collaboration means sometimes slightly less than perfect stuff gets in, and thats okay. You work as a team with the topic and material, even though you feel you could do better and more precisely alone. The price of teamwork is we help each other... which means we support others attempts to work together, not "diss" them for it.

I am unsure how one reconciles this. I can't even say I'm "right". But thats my sense of some of the core issues which are causing it to go wrong. For all I kniow, tell both of them to drop edits to articles if they cant work together. Anyway this is my contriibution, others will comment if its valid or not. FT2 01:08, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * (Afterthought - I suspect their wishes, what they want, is something like this: SIrubenstein needs to believe that the information going in, is good quality and reputable. CheeseDreams needs to feel that others are listening to the points she is making and not sidelining her when she asks lay questions. And both need to feel not under personal attack, nor that the article stalls due to disputes. Thats just on the side) FT2 01:19, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * (Further afterthought - See this post [long section at end of post] for an example of CheeseDreams making strong, positive, and powerfully rational argument in these debates) FT2 13:11, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

FT2 is absolutely correct when he writes that I "to believe that the information going in, is good quality and reputable." When it is clear to me that someone knows more about a topic than I, I accept what they contribute in good faith. But if someone makes a contribution concerning something I have researched, and if what they contribute is inconsistent with what I have found, I think it is vital to the project that I ask for citation or verification. FT2 seems to think that in a collaborative project, we have to compromise on the quality or verifiability of our work. I genuinely feel this is a dangerous policy and I reject it, vigorously. I have been in many arguments on Wikipedia where I was soon convinced that the other person was right; I have been involved in arguments where the other person concludes I was right. Either way, the result is a better Wikipedia. Slrubenstein 19:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Format of the RfA page
I'm not too familiar with RfA and similar proceedings, so I have to ask if the sort of jumble we already see on this new RfA is the way it's meant to be. Apparently, CheeseDreams went to a bunch of other pages (especially the RfC involving him/her) and copied n' pasted masses of material here. The section titled "Final Request By CheeseDreams", for instance, made its first appearance as part of the RfC. It is disorienting to read statements made at another time and for another purpose masquerading as new. Can anything sanction the re-use of editors' comments in pages and contexts they did not originally intend them for? This is the sort of Page-Cheeseification I hope these proceedings will bring an end to (as a side benefit to the ending of revert wars, constant hostility, vandalism, dizzying redirections/retitles and POV powerplays). It's a bad sign that the RfA itself permits Cheeseification. JDG 10:15, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams has a section of the page where he can put what he wants. If he makes a short clear rational statement of his situation he has an advantage. If he makes a long rambling stream of consciousness presentation he is at a disadvantage. I think we probably should establish a limit, which I suppose must be expressed as a maximum number of words. The same probably goes for the evidence page. Fred Bauder 12:07, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

 * I see. But when you say "he can put what he wants", that includes statements made by others on pages other than this RfA? In the course of his massive pasting he has brought forward complete comments made by other users and the result is that it looks like these users were contributing to this RfA when who knows what page they actually meant their comments for. Also, if CD is to carry forward great swaths of an RfC to this page, can it be acceptable that he finely scissors out only material favorable to him? JDG 13:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)...(added) By the way CheeseDreams, it strikes you as a good strategy to copy material from battles you lost to a new battle here? In those pages the votes for summary approval ran against you usually by about 15:1, and the Arbitrators voted 3-0 against you with 1 recuse on the page you copy the most text from. Plainly your vituperations and character witnesses on those pages had the worst effect possible for you, so why make us all read it all again (or read it until we realize it's the same stuff)? Oh right, half the appeal of all this for you is to have people tripping around after you, wasting time. Ok, good strat, then. JDG 14:08, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Please note, I kept the dates in their comments. The dates should be sufficiently informative for an intelligent reader not to misinterpret their origin. Cheesedreams 19:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Of course the reader will figure it all out after getting his bearings, but why put people through this? I mean, as one of the Arbs said above, you have a much better chance with a compact, coherent defense than you do with this mess anyway. I actually think a lot of your problem is you don't realize all the trouble you put people to with all your redirects and moves, unexplained or confusingly explained deletions and edits, duplicate namespaces etc.,. In other words, if you worked to simplify your use of the wiki, while of course developing an appreciation for the fringe status of many of your POVs, you just might turn into a valuable contributor. Instead you're just bulldozing ahead, hitting 'Save Page' like it's your source of air. On a few subjects I have a POV as minority as most of yours. In these cases, if I manage to get even a small mention of my position in an article I consider it a victory and am satisfied. This is the frame of mind you need to adopt instead of struggling to make your fringe POV the dominant one in any given article-- it won't happen and you'll just get endlessly browbeaten. So, seriously, think of turning the page, inform the Arbs you've done so, and edit accordingly. JDG 22:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If the Arb.s think that style of presentation is a valid criteria for judging guilt then they are bad aritrators and should be immediately sacked. CheeseDreams 14:15, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Unlike YOU, I do not seek victory, I seek truth and NPOV. CheeseDreams 14:15, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The 'victory' I speak of is only a victory because truth, from my vantage point, gets its due. This question is THE pivotal one for you. Will you accept that most of your views are extremely minority and therefore accept they will not be prominent in articles, or will you continue this attempt to exhaust everybody into giving your POVs dominance? Think about it for a moment: a well-crafted, albeit brief, expression of a minority POV can be very powerful in an article. You can become a strong advocate for truth-as-you-see-it by adjusting your expectations and shooting for these small but powerful paragraphs. This sounds like I'm encouraging editors to be advocates above all, which is ostensibly against the #1 rule of NPOV. But in reality it is impossible to be POV-free and contributing strong expressions of a certain POV in an article balanced by other expressions of other POVs results in ideal articles. This could be your role if you just stop for a moment of introspection and adjust your approach. JDG 20:46, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Will you accept that majority views are not automatically truth? CheeseDreams 18:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Silly argument. Will you accept that minority views are also not automatically truth? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * You both need to accept that you are partly right and partly wrong. And that it's not about being right and wrong on a personal level, it's about building an encyclopaedia, lest we forget. Filiocht 12:04, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Wheres the good faith
This page is starting to look like a legal document. Why? Is the matter so complicated? Bensaccount 21:45, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually it looks not at all like a legal document. This rambling, on and on, is exactly the opposite of a legal document which would focus on the points in issue. Fred Bauder 22:48, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Slrubenstein Rebuts CheesDreams' Response
CheeseDreams has four responses to my complaint My rebuttal: CheeseDreams' response to my complaint is not to defend herself, but rather to attack me. She dismisses the "five or six" sources I rely on as highly biased -- but these are five or six books that represent the cutting edge of Biblical and 1st century research, written by authors who are widely recognized and cited as the preeminent authorities on Jesus, the NT, and late antiquity Jewish history. She claims they are biased simply because she is ignorant and will not accept any contribution I make. She has never explained why she thinks they are biased or, indeed, what their bias is.
 * 1) Asking for bans is a serious violation of Civility
 * 2) Slrubenstein is serially uncivil to editors who disagree with him (see evidence presented by Amgine for a small selection of this)
 * 3) Slrubenstein trys to pack the house to win votes
 * 4) If I am to be blocked from editing Cultural and historical background of Jesus, then I cannot see why Slrubenstein should not be blocked as well.
 * 1) Asking to ban someone may be a violation of civility. I did not do this until over a month of being worn down by CheeseDreams' continuous disregard for my contributions, and her insistance on unverifiable or flat out wrong information in articles.  In this context, asking for consideration of a ban through a due-process mechanism like arbitration is not a violation of policy
 * 2) I have disagreed with many people who have endorsed the complaint against CheeseDreams (e.g. JDG and Wesley). I alsways strive to be civil, and in most cases succeed.  When I have tried to be civil with CheeseDreams, she has simply dismissed me e.g..
 * 3) I often ask people who have either already participated in a discussion, or who I believe would be interested in an article, to comment on ongoing discussions. As CheeseDreams' examples reveal, I almost never ask the person to take my side; sometimes I ask them if they think I am wrong, usually I just ask for their opinion.  Wikipedia is a collaborative project and I see nothing wrong with what I have done.  CD suggests that this is not a "normal" way of requesting comment, and wonders why I don't use the "normal" route of RfC.  But other editors explained to CD that what I did is in fact normal.  RfC is actually a relatively recent innovation (only 11 months old, I think) -- in the years before, contacting people through their talk pages was a very normal way to get their attention and ask for their input.  Moreover, RfC is explicitly part of the dispute resolution process, and is meant for cases where no consensus is possible.  At the time that I contacted other people, it was not because consensus was not possible, it was because there was an ongoing discussion where I thought their views would help the process of improving the article.  I certainly was not seeking formal intervention in a dispute.
 * 4) CheeseDreams should be blocked from the article in question because she is ignorant of the topic; has displayed no interest in doing serious research; refuses to verify her claims; and dismisses my verifiable claims based on research. I should not be blocked because I have done considerable research on the topic and have made well-informed, verifiable NPOV contributions.

I know that the complaint is against her and not me, but since she has attacked me I am compelled to respond. If any of the arbitrators want evidence to support my rebuttal I will provide it. In the meantime, please note that CheeseDream's response to my complaint is typical of her behavior on talk pages and gets at the heart of all the complaints against her: she refuses to work with others. When anyone questions an edit she makes, she does not reply with to the question, she simply attacks the person asking the question. This kind of behavior reveals that she has no faith in other editors. Talk pages are meant to be forums in which many people can discuss how to improve an article. Apparently, this is not CheeseDreams' interest Slrubenstein 21:46, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ChessDreams Rebuts Shrubblesten's Response to CheesDreams
Slrubenstein has responses to my rebuttal
 * 1) Asking to ban someone may be a violation of civility.
 * I agree. I don't think hypocrisy should be tolerated, does anyone else?

 * 1) CheeseDreams is flat out wrong about information
 * Isn't that POV, and, according to Arrogance, fits certain definitions quite accurately.

 * 1) Slrubenstein alsways strives to be civil
 * So is that why he attacked FT2 as having "specious and ignorant reasoning" rather than provide a proper counter argument to him?

 * 1) Slrubenstein often asks people who he believes would be interested in an article to comment
 * Odd how The Rev of Bru was never asked
 * Even odder that normal methods of asking for comment such as RfC were not used by Slrubenstein
 * Even odder still how someone arriving from RfC (after FT2 put a request up) called Maurreen had her reasoning dismissed by Slrubenstein when she preferred a different version

 * 1) CheeseDreams should be blocked from the article in question because she is ignorant of the topic
 * There is absolutely zero evidence of this being accurate
 * There is quite a bit of evidence that Slrubenstein is ignorant of the topic
 * E.g. does not know that Nazoreans and Mandaeans are the same
 * E.g. does not know that the bible mentions non-zero followers of John-the-baptist after Jesus' death

 * 1) CheeseDreams dismisses Slrubenstein's claims, which Slrubenstein states are based on research
 * No personal research
 * The reliance on just 5 or 6 sources (as admitted elsewhere by Slrubenstein), who seem highly biased to me having looked them up, is inaccurate reportage

 * 1) Slrubenstein should not be blocked because he has done considerable research on the topic and made well-informed, verifiable NPOV contributions
 * Totally disputed

 * 1) CheeseDreams refuses to work with others
 * I work quite happily with Wesley, Amgine, FT2, Mpolo, Rednblu, Ungtss, amongst others

 * 1) When anyone questions an edit CheeseDreams makes, she does not reply with to the question, she simply attacks the person asking
 * Totally disputed. See the archives of Talk:Jesus and syncretism (or wherever it is redirected to).

CheeseDreams 18:43, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the last week or two, CheeseDreams and I have managed some productive discussion and work, especially on Jesus and syncretism. On other articles, CheeseDreams has more or less refused to work with me and others, including the notorious Cultural and historical background of Jesus and more recently New Testament view on Jesus' life. See for a revert war from early December that seems to have died down in favor of a compromise now. While there was some discussion, there was far less than the number of reverts that took place. In short, it seems to me that CheeseDreams often either ignored discussion or attacked the person, but lately shows some signs of learning how to engage in an actual discussion. Time will tell how productive these discussions turn out to be. Take these observations for whatever they're worth.

Looking at other points, I would agree that CheeseDreams has shown some ignorance of topics edited (and I don't say this because I disagree with her); normally this wouldn't be a problem, but when her edits extend to refactoring entire sets of articles and major restructurings, coupled with complete distrust of anyone who objects or questions, it has been problematic. However, this is another point that may be improving of late. Wesley 04:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * As I have stated at least 7 times before, I have refused to respond directly to Slrubenstein because Slrubenstein has refused to comply with Civility and apologise for accusing me of racism. CheeseDreams 20:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Temporary injunction
I would like to request a temporary injunction until this matter is sorted out. Cheesedreams has been making major changes to Historicity of Jesus without any major discussion on the talk page. Also, she's been leaving in blank headings with sectstub tags and expecting that this will be left alone. Because of this I am requesting a temporary injunction on her editing pages. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu
I ask for a temporary injunction and would like to bring to the arbitrators attention the way that CheeseDreams has been editing the Historicity of Jesus article. For a while the article had two articles in it, and the one that CheeseDreams added had sections without any content! Now major structural and content changes are being made with little or no talk on the discussion page. Also, CheeseDreams has been making personal attacks on people's user talk pages. See (though this person was just as bad and got blocked as a result). See also Requests for comment/CheeseDreams. I would request that all personal attacks cease immediately.

I think that either she should change the way she edits, or she should be banned. I've dealt with some real POV warriors, but they haven't made badly structured edits and changes like I've see CheeseDreams make! This needs to stop. Also, you'll notice that they have mostly been on articles that are to do with Christianity. It seems she has an agenda, and I would like the ArbCom to get her to stop the POV edits. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:49, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The only agenda I have is truth, accuracy, and NPOV. As you will see at WP:AN where this particular edit is discussed, the edits I have made are in line with modern scholarship which the prior state of the article did not reflect. CheeseDreams 18:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * P.s. I would request that all personal attacks cease immediately implies compliance with Civility. Which, by the way, explicitely states that calling for a ban is a serious violation of the policy.
 * Hypocrisy is wonderful, isn't it? CheeseDreams 18:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, that's wrong. It is totally within policy to ask for a temporary injunction, and I'd advise you to read policy more clearly. Also, CheeseDreams is implying here that I have made personal attacks on her person: I would request direct evidence of this be presented, or if she cannot then she remains quiet. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, I don't see temporary injunction at all mentioned on Arbitration policy, although Civility does condemn calling for such things. Evidence of so doing is about 20 lines above. CheeseDreams 21:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, may have made a mistake here. However, it is perfectly OK to request a temporary injunction on a user. This is done all the time. The fact that you're editing in a way that forced me to request one should be a concern for you, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I really must ask for someone to tell me how the request for a temporary injunction is going! CheeseDreams POV pushing is getting absurd. Check out my comments on Talk:Authorship of the Pauline epistles. CheeseDream's POV is unjustifiable! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:05, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * You should maybe re-write that. You appear to have written Check out [TBSDY's] comments on [a talk page]. Such POV is unjustifiable, which would seem to be an accusation against yourself. CheeseDreams 01:34, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * lol! so it seems. Have fixed. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Modest proposal on RfCs
It seems that some editors are calling for CheeseDreams to be barred from topics related to religion. I have no idea if that's merited, but I suggest that CheeseDreams be forbidden from making new RfCs, which I consider to be a less weighty remedy. RfCs must be certified by two users. In effect, the other certifying party would have to make any future potential RfC, and CheeseDreams join.

Although she has stopped making them, I believe this step is necessary as she was obviously familiar with the procedure yet continued filing new ones in the past (see my evidence). Building this into the judgment ensures she will have the means to request comment when warranted, but not the means to unilaterally disrupt and harass users through RfC. Cool Hand Luke  10:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

VFD discussion
This page was proposed for deletion December 2004. The archived discussion is available at Votes_for_deletion/Vandalism_in_progress/CheeseDreams_controversy

CheeseDreams has allegedly vandalised my user page
I really must ask what's happening to that temporary injunction! See to see what she did. She added tags and. I have been forced to list her on vandalism in progress. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:48, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You insisted on my talk page that absolutely everything in wikipedia must be verifiable, and in fact cited, sources being everywhere specified, in addition to totally convincing evidence that it isn't personal research. If you didn't want me to do it, you shouldn't have made the request. CheeseDreams 01:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Violation of temporary injunction
Please see where Cheese Dreams violated her temporary injunction. Not only this, but she created Template:BPOV and Template:BPOVbecause, clearly POV templates. NPOV will do fine The edit I pointed out before is also a means to adding her POV bias to these articles. So, I've blocked her for 24 hours. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Um, ok. I just wish you solicited a third party to enforce this. As petitioners (is that the term?) we might have too much the appearance of bias. Cool Hand Luke  10:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Fair enough. However, there is a minor controversy on IRC at the moment over what was meant by "Article". I define article as including templates, others do not. I say that the intention of the temp injunction was to stop her from POV warring in Christian related articles, and that is why I deleted the Templates. Was this the intention of ArbCom? If it was not I will restore the templates myself. However, I will be extremely unhappy about this because (ironically) they are POV in themselves and will increase tension no end on Wikipedia. After all, I don't see an Template:APOV (atheist POV), a Template:QPOV (Qu'ran POV), a Template:JPOV (Jewish POV) or even a Template:BuddhaPOV! Why target one group? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:51, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see a significant amount of articles or a systemic bias which appears to reflect QPOV, or BuddhaPOV, or even APOV (which is unusual and indicative of systemic BPOV bias because IT is generally considered a region where the majority are atheist or agnostic, and because the naturalist premise of secular scholars investigating such issues would be expected to show through). JPOV would be a form of BPOV on the old testament so is duplicating it. But BPOV isn't about interpretation by religion X, its about the assumption of literal accuracy of the bible. Given that most people in the english speaking world do not assume that the bible is literally true, particularly the older parts, the fact that some articles here do is an indicator of massive bias, and needs to be marked as such. CheeseDreams 01:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you miss the point. Who cares if it's just an religious group you are targetting? Why not make an Template:APOV? If Template:BPOV survives TFD I'm going to create that template as the community will have obviously said that it's OK to target groups. That will only be fair. Also, you cannot just make a sweeping statement that given that most people in the western world don't believe in the literal accuracy of the Bible we should have a template that targets a particular group, because what you have here is an editorial from an atheist's POV at the top of the page. Why be so specific? It's NPOV, not "Bible" POV. Another thing (you appear to be ignorant on this matter), Jews (as a rule) do not believe in the New Testament and have their own setup of books, so how my theoretical Tempate:JPOV becomes part of BPOV, I cannot imagine. You are most definitely pushing an agenda, and it seems that you'll not stop. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It gets worse. See []. How many sock puppets does she have? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:11, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * On the topic of Christianity and Judaism, including CheeseDreams, 4. CheeseDreams 01:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh no—you got me wrong. I certainly think the templates were a violation of the injunction, and she's even added a series of her new tags without discussion even though that was one of the original complaints about her—I just think that this is such an obvious violation that it would be no problem to gain even more credibility by having another ban her. Cool Hand Luke  11:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, but is it possible to clarify that templates are part of the injunction against her? User:Vague Rant seems to think otherwise, and it would be nice to have this cleared up. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I believe the injunction was enacted after she made those edits. I'm going to double check this and probably unblock her. Rhobite 18:09, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * My last edit on the relevant day was at 19:22, I was notified at 19:46. The block was therefore unjustified (although I had already finished with Wikipedia for the day and gone to see my boyfriend in his new flat, so it didn't really have much effect). Nethertheless, I would like a formal apology. CheeseDreams 01:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Is my interpretation of this correct? CheeseDreams created those templates before the injunction was enacted? If so, they should be undeleted immediately. Besides which, their content is irrelevant. One person can't make a judgment call and delete it because they don't like the content. They were and are on TFD, and it should be consensus which decides upon their deletion, not a single user. - Vague | Rant 02:08, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Enlisting User:Neutrality's help, I was informed that Template:BPOV was created on 09:23, Jan 6, 2005. The injunction came into effect on 19:39, Jan 6, 2005. These templates should be immediately undeleted. - Vague | Rant 02:22, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

CheeseDreams is adding comments to the talk page of a Jesus-related article. I am not sure if this violates the injunction, but I think it is an example of trolling: Slrubenstein 19:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The injunction says CheeseDreams may not edit articles relating to Jesus. I don't think this includes talk pages. If you feel she is personally attacking you in article talk pages, you should stop engaging her. Rhobite 21:07, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * If she is attacking him personally, then she should be stopped. Period. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:10, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * If you read the 'Reliability and sources' section that SLR linked to above, it is clear that CheeseDreams initially the authored the section as an overt attempt to discredit Slrubenstein personally in the eyes of other readers and editors of the article, rather than to constructively discuss changes to the article. Rhobite, in this instance I fear you are blaming the victim for being attacked, though I doubt that's what you intended. Wesley 06:32, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Clarification
I was wondering if there might be some clarification as to what would constitute a "Christianity-related article." Are articles on books of the Old Testament to be considered Christianity-related, for instance? What about the articles on Herod the Great or Josephus? john k 00:57, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Githyanki

This sounds like something that could, conceivably, be worthwhile. As it is, however, it is not... so should it be deleted, or does someone know what he's talking about and care to make a real stub? Chaz 22:31, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's vandalism. Should be speedy deleted. - Lucky 6.9 22:40, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
User:Wyatts/Draft article A

A United States Defense Standard, often called a military standard or "MIL-STD", is used to help achieve standardization objectives by the U.S. Department of Defense. Standardization is beneficial in achieving interoperability, ensuring products meet certain requirements, commonality, reliability, total cost of ownership, compatibility with logistics systems, and similar defense-related objectives. Defense Standards are also used by other non-Defense government organizations, technical organizations, and industry. This article discusses definitions, history, and usage of Defense Standards. Related documents, such as Defense Handbooks and Defense Specifications are also addressed.

Definitions of military standards, specifications and handbooks
Although the official definitions differentiate between several types of documents, all of these documents go by the general rubric of "military standard", including defense specifications, handbooks, and standards. Strictly speaking, these documents serve different purposes. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), military specifications "describe the physical and/or operational characteristics of a product", while military standards "detail the processes and materials to be used to make the product." Military handbooks, on the other hand, are primarily sources of compiled information and/or guidance. The GAO acknowledges, however, that the terms are often used interchangeably.

Official definitions are provided by DOD 4120.24-M Defense Standardization Program (DSP) Policies and Procedures, March 2000, OUSD (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics):

 * Defense Handbook - A guidance document containing standard procedural, technical, engineering, or design information about the materiel, processes, practices, and methods covered by the DSP.

 * Defense Specification - A document that describes the essential technical requirements for purchased materiel that is military unique or substantially modified commercial items.

 * Defense Standard - A document that establishes uniform engineering and technical requirements for military-unique or substantially modified commercial processes, procedures, practices, and methods. There are five types of defense standards: interface standards, design criteria standards, manufacturing process standards, standard practices, and test method standards.

 * Standard - A document that establishes uniform engineering or technical criteria, methods, processes and practices.

 * Specification - A document prepared to support acquisition that describes the essential technical requirement for purchased materiel and the criteria for determining whether those requirements are met.

For purposes of this article, "defense standards" will include standards, specifications and handbooks.

Formats
As you might expect, the DOD has standards about the format of standards:

 * MIL-STD-961E, Defense and Program-Unique Specifications Format and Content, 1 August 2003, Dept. of Defense

 * MIL-STD-962D, Defense Standards Format and Content, 1 August 2003, Dept. of Defense

Origins of military standards
Defense standards evolved from the need to ensure proper performance of military equipment. For example, about 1300 British soldiers died in the Zulu war, in part because they could not open the ammunition cases (van Opstal, 1994). Defense standards provide many benefits, such as minimizing the number of types of ammunition, ensuring compatibility of tools, and ensuring quality during production of military equipment. This results, for example, in ammunition cases that can be opened without tools. The proliferation of standards had drawbacks, however. It was argued that the large number of standards, nearly 30,000 by 1990, imposed unnecessary restrictions, increased cost to contractors (and hence the DOD), and impeded the incorporation of the latest technology. Responding to increasing criticism, Secretary of Defense William Perry issued a memorandum in 1994 that effectively eliminated the use of most defense standards. This has become known as the "Perry memo". Many defense standards were cancelled. In their place, the DOD encouraged the use of industry standards, such as ISO 9000 series for quality assurance. Weapon systems were required to use "performance specifications" that described the desired features of the weapon, as opposed to requiring a large number of defense standards. In 2005, however, the DOD partially reversed itself and issued a new memorandum that permits use of defense standards without obtaining a waiver, but did not reinstate any cancelled defense standards.

According to a 2003 issue of Gateway, published by the Human Systems Information Analysis Center, the number of defense standards and specifications have been reduced from 45,500 to 28,300. However, other sources noted that the number of standards just before the Perry memorandum was issued was less than 30,000, and that thousands have been cancelled since then. This may be due to differences in what is counted as a "military standard".

title: User:Wyatts/Draft article A


text:
Talk:Winsock

I'll fix the winsock page this weekend, it is out of date and definately needs updating on Win 2000 and Win XP implemenations of the protocol. --Jared Buck 22:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not very informative...
My apollogies in advantance to the person who wrote this article, but this article doesn't quite explain the real funtion of Winsock.

 * I think the shiva ppp dialer should get an (dis)honourable mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.82.83 (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

i agree it is not very informative to a person who does not know what it is. Good back ground. to a person who has is searching for a definition and an understanding of it I am no clearer than it some software for networking.

andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.43.212 (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Version 1.0 seem missing from the list
Maybe it's just nitpicking, but if there's a list of versions, it has to be complete... --tyomitch 01:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * This isn't meant to be an exhaustive list, there were quite a few versions of Winsock from quite a few different vendors. This is just a list of which versions were bundled with Windows. AlistairMcMillan 01:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Version 1.0 was bundled with Windows 3.x, as one can infer from the words 'has been supported ... since Windows 3.0', but shouldn't that be stated explicitly? --tyomitch 02:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Bzzt wrong. Winsock for Windows 3.x was a separate download.  See Windows 3.x AlistairMcMillan 03:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Just found out: Winsock couldn't be supported by Windows 3.0 in any case, because Windows 3.0 was released two years before the initial Winsock spec. --tyomitch 21:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Another mismatch: David Treadwell of Microsoft joined the team for version 1.1 of the specification, published in January 1993. - David Treadwell is listed in the Credits section of Winsock v1.0 spec, dated June, 1992; am I to delete his mention? --tyomitch 22:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Windows Sockets has been supported by every version of Microsoft's operating system since Windows 3.1, yet the first version of Windows to be shipped with Winsock was Windows 95.
Regarding this snippet from the article: I think it's poorly worded. "yet the first..." makes it sound like Microsoft sat on its hands with respect to incorporating winsock into Windows, when indeed it was incorporated into the first major version of Windows to be released after Winsock 1.0

As one of the authors....
Microsoft's involvement during the early stages of the WinSock work was ambiguous, to say the least. The individual participants from Microsoft were active and engaged, but Microsoft's corporate commitment was very unclear. It's important to remember that at the time of Winsock 1.0, Microsoft had a lousy reputation in the TCP/IP area: their first home-grown stack was sadly deficient in features and performance.

While I'm commenting, I'm confused as to why Tyomitch hacked the author affiliations to remove all links except for Microsoft. Either all author affiliations should be included, or none. I'm going to restore them.

If you want to know what really happened in WinSock, feel free to ask me.

Geoff Arnold, co-author of WinSock 1.0 and 1.1.

 * Recall someone(?) did a port of the BSD TCP/IP stack sources (compiled with much work as 16-bit?) to run on Windows. The port was a bit rough, but arguably better than the then-present alternatives. The guy disappeared, and several months later Microsoft had a decent (dramatically better) BSD-compatible TCP/IP stack. I had always suspected the guy took his port to Microsoft. pbannister (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

An IP stack's IP

 * There was some discussion about how best to address the copyright, intellectual property, and potential anti-trust issues, and consideration was given to working through the IETF or establishing a non-profit foundation. In the end, it was decided that the specification would simply be copyrighted by the four individual authors. (It seems unlikely that corporate legal departments would sanction such an approach these days.)

This comment hides a great big deal. It's an encyclopedia's duty to inform, so no need to be stingy with explanation here. Why would this approach not be sanctioned "these days"? This comment should either go or it should be expanded. It's obvious intellectual property issues in software are not now what they were 15 years ago, but that's hardly a full explanation. 82.92.119.11 21:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a reasonable comment. I'll amplify the comment.

Geoff Arnold

There's a difference between "non-blocking" and "asynchronous"
Under the "Technology" section, the article states that "It should also be noted that Windows Sockets expanded on BSD Sockets functionality, by offering "non-blocking" or asynchronous Sockets (accessed by calling WSAAsynch before the desired function, e.g. WSAAsynchGetHostByName)"

The implication is that "non-blocking" and "asynchronous" are the same, and that's not correct. "Non-blocking" simply means that a call to a socket function will return immediately without blocking further execution of the program. "Asynchronous" refers to a notification method whereby Winsock will notify a program when a socket function has completed.

Moreover, the BSD sockets already had "non-blocking" sockets, so it's factually incorrect to state that Winsock "expanded" on BSD in this resepct.

Finally, the "Async" part is spelled incorrectly (i.e., the name of the function in the example is "WSAAsyncGetHostByName" not "WSAAsynchGetHostByName"), and not all winsock functions have asynchronous counterparts.

63.207.173.11 21:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with the comment above, moreover the sentence citing "WSAAsynchGetHostByName" seems to suggest that the sole way to do asynch I/O is thru functions that have WSAAsync prefixed to them, as many of us know many other functions e.g. WSASend, WSARecv do asynchronous I/O too .. Ranjit.puri (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

ODI
Equivalents to the Packet Drivers would be Novell ODI (Open Driver Interface) architecture [...]

Is it Open Driver Interface or Open Data-Link Interface? --Abdull 19:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Background
The background section is really interesting and informative. The only thing missing are a few dates here and there. --Abdull 17:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Porting is dead??
"Within a relatively short time, porting gave way to the development of dedicated Windows applications."

Sorry. This is not right... or if it is, then development of dedicated Windows apps is itself giving way to porting - or, to use more buzzwordy terminology, cross-platform coding. Now, it's true that some things are hard to port - graphical interfaces are notorious for this. But it is possible to write an ANSI C or C++ program which can be compiled for any POSIX-compliant Unix (including Linux in many/all of its variants), for OS/2, for anything under the Sun (and for Solaris too). And it's possible for that program to use socket services. Then you come to try to put it on Windows. Suddenly you need a whole lot of #ifdef statements, governing for instance a dedicated WSAStartup call, some changed API names, the different data type (SOCKET instead of simply int), new ways to code the same error checks, and the occasional difference in format.

I'm sorry if this sounds like a rant, because it's not meant to be. All I'm saying is that the Microsoft alterations to the BSD standard socket terminology are not as benign as this article implies. 210.84.46.48 User:Rosuav (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WSAGetHostByName?
Does such a function exist? There does appear to be a function called "gethostbyname" without the WSA prefix. Nitwit005 (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

On versions
The biggest problem, in my opinion, with Winsock as used by Microsoft, is versions... --David Garfield (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The specification version is supposed to become an API constant, using a mapping that only allows for two numbers.  Thus, 2.2.1 referenced in the article doesn't map to an API version number.
 * 2) Microsoft appears to have renumbered the versions.  Windows NT 4.0 SP3 included version 2.1.  Windows NT 4.0 SP6 included version 2.2.  I have seen a version 2.3 (but can't tell you what version of windows it was).  I have seen all 3 of these in Microsoft documentation.  Microsoft now describes the current version as 2.2.
 * 3) Microsoft doesn't support old version.  This means if you acquire the 2.0 specifications, and properly write a program to use it, it can't run on current Windows implementations!  To make your winsock program run you must initialize winsock with a fixed version, find out what version the Microsoft implementation claims to support, and initialize that version.  As such, you are claiming that your program is compatible with a version of the API that was not necessarily conceived of when you wrote your program.  This defeats the purpose of API versioning.

64 bit
Is winsock2 part of windows vista? vista 64? If so... where are the libraries? what are they named? --75.146.141.206 (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

where is the corelation between API DLL confusion and the shortening of the name?!
and more importantly, how do you focus on this drone shit? really, I need to learn that. please send all drugs to 123 magic st, fairyville, yours truly the swanky moonriver

Support for version 2.0
This page: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms742213%28v=vs.85%29.aspx documents that there is support for version 2.0

Windows Sockets code and design are based on BSD sockets[...]
Stating that code is based on BSD sockets without providing any citation seems wrong. While there are a lot of discussions about that topic out there, most of them interchange things like the sockets API and its implementation with tools like nslookup and their code etc., which doesn't have anything to do with Winsock itself. Additionally, one can find good quality sources that implementation is not based on BSD code:

No, it's not true. For a while we thought it was, but we proved to be incorrect. Microsoft's network stack was written by a Scottish company called Spider.

http://www.silug.org/lists/silug-discuss/200403/msg00165.html 178.0.5.149 (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

BoF conference - reference
"Windows[tm] Sockets Network Programming" by Bob Quinn and Dave Shute, Addison-Wesley Advanced Windows Series, 1996 isbn 0-201-63372-8

Forward by Martin Hall, WinSock Group Chairman, CTO Stardust Technologies, Inc.

"In the Fall of 1991, Martin Hall, of Stardust Technologies, organized an informal "birds-of-a-feather" gathering at InterOp, the flagship trade show of the TCP/IP networking industry. The purpose of the meeting was to investigate the possibility of creating a standard API for TCP/IP applications in Microsoft Windows. Representatives from PC-based TCP/IP protocol stack vendors and Windows network application developers were in attendance. ... became a formal working group. ... ... design an API ... Berkeley Sockets as starting point ... Version 1.0, released in June of 1992.."

Many additional references in the back for magazine articles, etc. (I have no idea how to best work this into the article, as a bystandander.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinkadoodle (talk • contribs) 13:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Winsock


text:
Service discovery

Service discovery is the process of automatically detecting devices and services on a computer network. It aims to reduce the manual configuration effort required from users and administrators. A service discovery protocol (SDP) is a network protocol that helps accomplish service discovery.

Service discovery requires a common language to allow software agents to make use of one another's services without the need for continuous user intervention.

Protocols
There are many service discovery protocols, including:
 * Bluetooth Service Discovery Protocol (SDP)
 * Bonjour, e.g., Apple AirPrint
 * DNS Service Discovery (DNS-SD), a component of zero-configuration networking
 * DNS, as used for example in Kubernetes
 * Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)
 * Internet Storage Name Service (iSNS)
 * Jini for Java objects.
 * Lightweight Service Discovery (LSD), for mobile ad hoc networks
 * Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP) standards-based neighbor discovery protocol similar to vendor-specific protocols which find each other by advertising to vendor-specific broadcast addresses (versus all-1's), such Cabletron (Enterasys) and Cisco Discovery Protocol (both referred to as CDP but different formats).
 * Local Peer Discovery, or Local Service Discovery
 * Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP), usually used for unicast exchange of multicast source information between anycast Rendez-Vous Points (RPs) to service mcast clients.
 * Service Location Protocol (SLP)
 * Session Announcement Protocol (SAP) used to discover RTP sessions
 * Simple Service Discovery Protocol (SSDP), a component of Universal Plug and Play (UPnP)
 * Universal Description Discovery and Integration (UDDI) for web services
 * Web Proxy Autodiscovery Protocol (WPAD)
 * WS-Discovery (Web Services Dynamic Discovery)
 * XMPP Service Discovery (XEP-0030)
 * XRDS (eXtensible Resource Descriptor Sequence) used by XRI, OpenID, OAuth, etc.

title: Service discovery


text:
User talk:JoseFMartindelPozo

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:34, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:JoseFMartindelPozo


text:
User talk:Grolsh

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:34, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

It takes less time to revert an image than it does to upload a vandalized version. Why bother? --Fastfission 06:37, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Grolsh


text:
Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 10

Mediation
Mediation has now started (see Requests for mediation). I've asked Ciz and FT2 (who is representing the other side of the dispute) not to continue to discuss on this page for now. It would be helpful if the others involved could also hold off for a while and just let things rest as they are - hopefully this will give the mediation process it's best chance. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 20:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)As the main article is locked I put this here.

In reading all this, I can't help but but notice the "lifestyles" isnt the only thing that needs to be looked at, if you notice the recent edit history of the article, someone has changed the external links to reflect a negative personal opinion on one of the links.

check out the previous original version and that it has been changed

ORIGINAL http://www.humaneconcepts.com/ Humane Concepts - Animal Sexual Abuse Awareness and Prevention

CHANGED TO Humane Concepts (http://www.humaneconcepts.com/) (strongly anti-zoophile site)

Revision as of 17:32, 28 Oct 2004 66.30.122.120

Nowhere on the linked site does it say anything about being an "anti" zoophile site, it appears to be an animal rights site that happens to be about bestiality as abuse.
 * Asairs/ humanconcepts is not and Animal Rights site. It is blatantly anti-zoophile, they don't seem to have any qualms showing it.  I am not sure why you need to change it back, it merely tells people what they need to know about it.  If anything might need revising, it would be the zoophile.net description. --Steele
 * This coming from a person who advocates bestiality and has several 'zoos' for friends. And ASAIRS is against sexual abuse towards animals. If you want to say thats being Anti-Zoophila, be my guest. --Ciz 17:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * This is coming from a rabid anti-zoo, asairs pawn, who can’t grasp the concept of having a logical discussion without his personal fears and ignorance controlling him. Excuse me, (thank you Ciz) I meant to say that it is an anti-zoo organization masquerading as an animal welfare group.--Steele
 * I dont like animals being molested. If that makes me an anti-zoo, then fine. --Ciz 11:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Naw, it just makes you intolerant and a hypocrite (because you drink milk too don't you?) --Steele
 * I was opposed to bestiality before I ever heard of ASAIRS --Ciz 11:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * As opposed to someone who cant control his abusive sexual urges. --Ciz 11:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * When haven't I, or any others? Now you are just resorting to character defamation. --Steele
 * Someone who cant control their urges to have sex with animals. --Ciz 00:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * They aren't masquerading. They dont want to see animals being molested. --Ciz 11:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * ''The former owners spent there time harassing and stalking zoophiles, instead of doing anything meaningful to help animals.
 * Who are known to molest animals. Its no different than going after pedophiles to stop children from being hurt. --Ciz 00:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Another link: Website (resource): Pet-Abuse.Com Database (http://www.pet-abuse.com/database/search.php?type_id=10) "Bestiality" cases from the US and England Note how bestiality is in quotation marks.

 * And I've sent Sanse an e-mail. --Ciz 02:29, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(note - small format fix)

steele, if you are involved in zoo as ciz says that would be a biass, so you would see that site or any site that has concerns for animals as the enemy. if that is an anti zoo site then explain why zoophilia.net has links to it on every page! the link text there says this-->

 * First of all, could I request that whoever you are, for the sake of clarity, please put your name at the end of your statements (just use the three tilde “~” key/shortcut). Thanks in advance.

 * About my bias? That’s like saying any person with any affiliation to a group is biased and can’t participate.  Everyone has there own bias, whether it be irrational, reasonable, extreme or neutral.  Would you tell an environmentalist he can’t contribute to any articles on wiki concerning the environment because he is biased for being affiliated with conservation groups?  That defeats the whole point of the wiki-concept when you block one side out.

 * For point of clarity I have friends who has been harassed and stalked by these very people and other rabid-anti-zoos. So I am merely bringing the other side of the argument to this encyclopedia.--Steele
 * Then maybe they should stop having sex with animals. --Ciz 11:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Stalking and harassing people is illegal, in America we have something called due process. Just because you have personal feelings about something doesn't give you the right to do those things. --Steele
 * Having sex with animals is also illegal. --Ciz 00:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We strongly discourage any kind of animal abuse. If in doubt, please consult asairs http://www.asairs.com The purpose of this website is to give a complete picture of the animal sex / beastiality topic. So please see the entire website before you make up your mind.

edit in--> i checked both zoophilia.net and zoophile.net and they almost look like they are run by the same people, same content diffent layout but note that both zoo sites have that link to asars. looks like they are concerned about animal abuse and are directing readers to the asars site to learn about animal abuse

 * I suppose the people at zoophilia.net feel the same way I do about sexual animal abuse. We both see it as wrong and would immediately report it to the authorities. That doesn’t mean that the zoo website endorses asairs black and white view that all animal sex is abusive.--Steele
 * Unless you're the one having sex with the animal. Then its just love. --Ciz 22:11, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No, actually I never said anything like that. If it can be proven that someone caused physical harm to an animal then they should be prosecuted under the law, no matter who it is. --Steele
 * So as long as no physical harm is caused its ok? Does that mean pedophilia is ok too if the child isnt physically harmed? --Ciz 00:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * And pedophiles dont view the idea that all child sex is abusive. You're both wrong. --Ciz 15:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * lol, and witch hunters thought there actions where righteous. You're both wrong.  --Steele
 * Wrong comparisions. There were no witches at all. --Ciz 00:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the humane concepts site says ---> This site endorses animal welfare education. You should be an adult to continue. Welcome Police Officers, Veterinarians, Legislators, Rescuers, Shelter Staff, and concerned citizens The purpose of this site is to provide a point of reference regarding laws, case files, information and education on animal sexual abuse. as steels profile shows an interest in wolves and this site is connected to wolfstation.org maybe he/she or someone should drop the owners an email mailto:humaneconcepts@wolfstation.org and invite them in here for input
 * These of course are not the same people that I usually talk about. The older people who where the ones that created the webpage are the former “witch hunters”.  The website is now under new management, and the people are there are not near as bad as the last crew.  We have, in fact, already talked with some of the people from this “new” team.--Steele

they have this as a warning ---> Emails with questions on how to have sex with animals will not be answered. We do not condone animal sexual abuse, we're not going to tell you how to do it. <<-- end of edit in
 * Emails containing threats of violence will be traced to the point of origin and every attempt made to pursue prosecution of the sender.

the bigger issue is not the title of the link so much as its interjection of pers opinion into a resource list. applying the same logic, a wiki page on homosexuality would have a link to a gay help site and title on the link  maybe someone makes it --> fag help site, and  a link to a hetero site would be --> anti gay site. the idea is not interjecting personal labels on resources or links but to provide defining material and resources for more information for readers to access.

going to that site it has information on animal health, risks, legal stuff, cases from the news, stuff on S/N and is attached to some police k9 site that doesn't seem to be working. it doesnt look any more anti zoo than the hsus site or the pet-abuse site, so it looks more like some pers agenda since only this link was changed and as ciz pointed out, bestiality was put in quotations by the same person. 'nuff said just pointing out a few things that needed to be said.

 * I think a better example would be that a fundamental religious website filled with propaganda, statistics, risk of homosexuality, legal info on the progress against gay marriage and news solely about homosexuals who are violent towards their partners or molest children would be classified as anti-gay. Personally, I think that is reasonable regardless whether or not you think bestiality is wrong. The priorities of the previous group have also shown that and the new crowd hasn’t change the website enough to warrant something different.
 * Because most gays do not have sex with children. A homosexual is not someone who is erotically attracted to children, but to their own gender. A zoo is someone who is erotically attracted to animals, so saying they have sex with animals isnt that big of a leap. Now, they believe the act of having sex with animals is abusive. Using your logic, a site that is against child molestation should be called "anti-childlove." --Ciz 22:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * ''And most zoos do not have sex with children.
 * I dont recall saying otherwise. Most have sex with animals. --Ciz 00:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * A zoophile is not someone who is erotically attracted to children, but to a different species.
 * I dont recall saying they were. You compaired ASAIRS to a site that links homosexuality to pedophilia, even though they arent related (homosexuality is attraction to same gender, pedophilia is to children). That isnt the case with ASAIRS. Zoophila and bestiality are linked, like it or not. --Ciz 00:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Saying they have sex with animals is an assuption, it has nothing to do with "leaps".
 * No more of an assumption than saying most heterosexuals have sex the opposite gender.--Ciz 00:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No one has proven that sex with animals in inherintly abusive.'' --Steele
 * What world do you live on? Besides, arent you trying to say zoos dont have sex with animals? --Ciz 00:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think your two examples would be comparable if the page had a zoo link called “animal F*cker site” or a normal hetro website linked as “anti zoo site”. Unless I am mistaken, in which wikipedia has a stricter policy on NPOV/POV then I had imagined but it seems natural as many organizations call themselves anti-war or anti-fur because they are against the concept in it entirety.  The asairs website clearly does not approve of animal sex in any form whether it is abusive or not, thus anti-zoo, or probably more appropriately anti-bestiality.--Steele
 * Whether its abusive or not? Its always abusive. --Ciz 15:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't see this kind of generalism as anything other than personal POV on the verge of ranting. So here's a professional ranter's POV from 2 The Ranting Gryphon's 2Sense show #61 (62mins 45secs in):
 * "The Norwegian Federation for Animal Protection in Norland ... has won the (party) support ... in their bid to create legislation preventing sex between human and animals ... (Party leader) took up the fight to outlaw bestiality after getting a phonecall from a young girl who had fantasies about having sex with a horse and asked if it was legal. Current Norwegian regulation is limited to laws prohibiting behaviour that causes an animal unnecessary suffering which leaves the matter outside of the existing penal code.
 * "Okay, I don't have sex with animals. I don't do that. This is me personally, I don't have sex with animals, honestly. But you know what I think they need to do? I really wish they could get the animals to vote in this. Because I guarantee you if they could get the animals to vote this sure wouldn't be illegal! Because you know they're talking about 'unnecessary abuse' ... A horse gets jerked off every other night 'Oh god, the trauma' I'm sure he hates the f*** out of that! ... So no, this is not abuse.
 * "You think a horse minds it if somebody comes out there every other night and jerks it off? That's not abuse, I want to be that horse! If that's abuse, I want to be a horse and I would like to have some of that abuse please ... When your horse catches a glance, just a glance of you, and suddenly automatically gets a five foot boner, that's not abuse! ... This is not rape, this is not abuse. Folks, animals don't give a s*** okay?
 * "Animals are the most open creatures on the planet when it comes to sex. If it feels good, they're gonna do it and they don't give a s*** ... If they can blow a wad that's all they want, okay? I say more sex with animals, I think more people should do it. I'm not going to, but I think more other people should."
 * Both views are extreme in the liberty taken with generalisms. I for one prefer to take a more moderate stance, one that sees less tolerance the less related species are - as in proportionally in size and by whether the animals are mammals as we are or not. -- Oruborus
 * You either think its ok or you dont. There's no middle ground here. A dog, for example, is not even capable of comprehending an abstract idea like "consent," let alone able to grant it in full understanding of it's actions.
 * Furthermore, the only animal 'proportionally in size' to a human is a gorilla. --Ciz 23:16, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * ''Apparently many here have found the middle ground.
 * THey either think having sex with animals is ok or not. --Ciz 00:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * There's a third possibility: they aren't sure. Maybe you have an absolutely certain answer to everything, Ciz, but I don't.  I can certainly see why someone would consider human/animal sex immoral.  But not everyone agrees on other moral questions, so I can also see how someone could disagree with this one.  The argument about animals' incapacity for consent makes sense... but runs into problems when you try to apply it to, say, plants or inanimate objects and try to establish whether or not they can be traumatized by a given activity, and whether they have a right to be free of that.
 * I fail to see where you're going with the comparision of animals to plants and inanimate objects. --Ciz 04:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Your argument is that animals cannot consent. Neither can (for example) a cucumber. So either you're opposed to having sex with vegetables, or you need a better argument. JAQ 12:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * A cucumber isnt a living, breathing animal. --Ciz 13:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * That's right; it's not. But it's still a hole in your arguments, which lack any kind intellectual framework.
 * How is it a hole, pray tell? Animals are not inanimate objects like a vegetable is. You talk about running around in circles trying to justify an opinion, then you start comparing dogs to cucumbers. -Ciz 19:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It's why you keep running in circles about this stuff. JAQ 18:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. --Ciz 19:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The whole matter of animal rights itself is hardly an open-and-shut question in our society, with reasonable people believing on one hand that meat is murder, and on the other that meat is one of the four basic food groups.
 * But eating meat is natural. We were created as omnivores. And it occurs in the wild. --Ciz 04:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem to matter to those who argue that it's abusive. What exactly is the difference between f*cking a cow and killing it? JAQ 12:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Because we were designed as omnivores to eat meat, thats why. We do it to survive. Its no different than if a lion eats a zebra. But the lion doesnt rape the zebra. And besides, its usually the dogs that are f*cked and we dont eat dogs. --Ciz 13:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * But it's not necessary for humans to eat meat to survive.
 * You have to take in a lot of extra stuff if you want to. Furthermore, animals eat eachother in the wild. Its natural. --Ciz 19:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * And people do eat dogs.
 * Not anywhere around here. China does, but they only started doing Animal Rights recently. And if you tried eating your dog here you'd get arrested --Ciz 19:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Again, you're wandering in circles looking for arguments to justify an opinion, not basing it on any kind of sound information. And really, this kind of lack of information doesn't do much to make your viewpoint about the facts of this topic very credible. JAQ 18:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Sound information? As opposed to thinking its ok to have sex with animals?? All you've said was, "People eat meat, so its ok to have sex with your dog." --Ciz 19:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * My first question to anyone here is whether they can conceive of a viewpoint on this topic that differs from their own... and if they cannot, whether that inability disqualifies them from editing a Wikipedia article about it. JAQ 04:21, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It is just you that wishes to continue denying that it exist. How would you know what a dog is capable of?
 * I know that a dog's intelligence is in no way comparable to a human's. --Ciz 00:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * if he gives his consent, that is all he needs.
 * No more than an underage teenager giving his or her consent. --Ciz 00:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * He already knows what he is doing, it feels good to him, which is as much consent he or she needs to do any activity.
 * Then that mean its ok for a 40 yearold man to have sex with a 15 yearold girl, as long as she consents and thinks it feels good. Using your logic.
 * and if dogs knew what they were doing, they wouldnt have to be taken outside to do do to their business, or they wouldnt drink out of toilets--Ciz 00:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * There are many animals proportional to humans, and it is not body mass that Oruborus is talking about.'' --Steele
 * Then what is he talking about?? --Ciz 00:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Hahah, that was great Oruborus, thanks for contribution! --Steele

ok then i suggest   the use of  actual site titles without  subjective labels would be more correctly neutral, let the readers go look and decide for themselves about the contents of links. UZP a zoophile owned site would then be-->  UZP the ultimate zoo page,  the zoophilia.net link would be--> Zoophilia & Beastiality Information Articles, and the asars link would be --> Humane Concepts Animal Sexual Abuse Awareness and Prevention, or could be shortened. either that or as you indicate change that to --> anti-bestiality site, which fits the stated purpose without being a subjective opinion.

Regarding the ASAIRS - er, "Humane Concepts" - link, I made that change, not ContiE, who just reverted some of Ciz's changes to a previous version. Given the arguments I've seen here, the unsigned link title changes listed sound reasonable. I've gone ahead and made them. Zetawoof 03:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ciz
Ciz, stop editing this article while the mediation process is going on. -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone)   00:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Zoosexuality is not an actual word. I corrected it as such. --Ciz 00:28, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It is. And again, you are not supposed to edit the page while mediation is in progress. -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone)   00:40, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No dictionary recognises it. --Ciz 00:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * And? -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone)   01:09, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not an actual word. --Ciz 01:27, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Pleather's a real word, but no dictionary recognized it till last year. In fact, let's go back farther. Shakespeare! He coined lots of words. Assassin and assassination for one. They weren't in dictionaries when he used them. But now they are. Dictionaries can lag behind actual vocabulary by quite a bit. [[User:Premeditated Chaos| P M  C ]] 06:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Pleather was a new product. It couldnt be in the dictionary until it was created.As for assasin: At first glance, one would be hard-pressed to find a link between pleasure and the acts of assassins. Such was not the case, however, with those who gave us the word assassin. They were members of a secret Islamic order originating in the 11th century who believed it was a religious duty to harass and murder their enemies. The most important members of the order were those who actually did the killing. Having been promised paradise in return for dying in action, the killers, it is said, were made to yearn for paradise by being given a life of pleasure that included the use of hashish. From this came the name for the secret order as a whole, an, “hashish users.” After passing through French or Italian, the word came into English and is recorded in 1603 with reference to the Muslim Assassins. (dictionary.com) --Ciz 19:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Okay, fine, I was obviously mistaken about Mr. Shakespeare. But pleather! "Couldn't be in the dictionary until it was created" okay, fantastic. But it is a real word. Zoophilia is a relatively new word. It can't have been put in a dictionary yet because it's so new. But regardless, it's a real word. Dictionaries are just lagging behind. [[User:Premeditated Chaos| P M  C ]] 20:18, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The word zoophilia was around before zoophiles adopted it for their own practices. It wasnt always associated with being erotically attracted to animals. --Ciz 20:23, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Hey Ciz, I have an idea. Go meditate, and stop complaining at me here. [[User:Premeditated Chaos| P M  C ]] 20:46, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mediation
As Ciz is continuing to edit here, I am withdrawing my request to everyone to stop editing and commenting. I will also review the mediation process and progress with the participants -- sannse (talk) 23:52, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)

title: Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 10


text:
User talk:Beeplet

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:36, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Beeplet


text:
User talk:Entity 0

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:36, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Entity 0


text:
General Staff of the Turkish Armed Forces

The General Staff of the Turkish Armed Forces (Turkish: Türk Silahlı Kuvvetleri Genelkurmay Başkanlığı, abbreviation: TSK Gnkur. Bşk.lığı) is the highest staff organization in the Turkish Armed Forces.

Chief of the General Staff

Source:

The Chief of the General Staff is the most senior ranked officer in the Turkish Armed Forces. The current Chief of the General Staff is Yaşar Güler. His predecessor was Hulusi Akar. According to the Constitution of Turkey, the Chief of the General Staff reports to the President and serves as Commander of the Turkish Armed Forces.

In times of war, the Chief of the General Staff assumes the authority of Commander in Chief on behalf of the President, which represents the authority of Commander in Chief on behalf of the Parliament. Commanding the Armed Forces and establishing the policies and programs related with the preparation of personnel for combat, intelligence, operations, organization, training and logistic services are the responsibilities of the General Staff. Furthermore, the General Staff coordinates the military relations of the Turkish Armed Forces with its counterparts in the member states of NATO and other friendly nations.

The Chief of the General Staff holds the fifth-highest rank in the state protocol list, behind the President of the Republic, the President of the Constitutional Court, the Chairman of the Grand National Assembly and the Vice President, on the protocol of the Republic of Turkey.

It is customary for the Chief of the General Staff to have held the post of Commander of the Turkish Land Forces prior to their appointment. Although it is not a legal requirement.

Turkey's defence organisation
The hierarchy, representation and employment of the Turkish Armed Forces within the state organization is regulated by the constitution of Turkey.

The Turkish Armed Forces consists of General Staff of the Turkish Armed Forces, the Turkish Land Forces, the Turkish Naval Forces and the Turkish Air Forces.

According to the constitution, the  'Commander in Chief ' is within the spiritual entity of the Grand National Assembly and represented by the President who is responsible to the Grand National Assembly for national security and the preparation of the Turkish Armed Forces to defend the country. However, the authority to declare a state of war and send the Turkish Armed Forces to foreign countries or allow foreign armed forces to be stationed in Turkey require a vote of approval from the Turkish Parliament. Although president can decide to use the Armed Forces for defence of the country if there is a sudden outside attack against the country.

Minister of National Defence is subordinate to the President and responsible for recruitment, procurement, production, logistics, medical care and other tasks in the preparation of Armed Forces and its personnel for military operations.

The Chief of the General Staff is subordinate to the Minister of National Defense and responsible for:
 * Preparing the Armed Forces and its personnel for military operations
 * Gathering military intelligence
 * Organization and training of the Armed Forces
 * Management of the logistic services

The Chief of the General Staff is also, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces in the name of the President, in wartime.

The commanders of the three services (Army, Navy and Air Force) reports directly to the Minister of National Defense.

Special Forces Command
Special Forces Command (Özel Kuvvetler Komutanlığı), nicknamed Maroon Berets (Bordo Bereliler) because of their distinctive service headgear, are the special operations unit of the Turkish Armed Forces. Special Forces Command is not aligned to any force command in TAF, getting orders directly from the General Staff.