User talk:Mr. Grace

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello, Mr. Grace, and welcome to English Wikiquote.


Please note that comments should not be edited in the middle: answer after the comment, quoting relevant parts if it is necessary for your answer. Also, point-by-point refutations are considered widely to be bad wikiquette -- state your own points succintly and clearly. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not remove npov and accuracy tags from a page until there has been consensus that the issues are resolved. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikiquote. Might I ask that you please use the "Edit summary" feature whenever you edit to provide a terse summary of the changes you make during each edit? This helps folks review article changes from a broad perspective without having to do server-intensive, step-by-step examination of individual edits. If you'd like more information on this, please see Wikipedia:Edit summary or drop me a note on my talk page. Thank you for your assistance. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not sign on behalf of other users. You can remind them to sign on their talk pages, or comment below their signature noting the originator. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Please note that only sysops are allowed to close votes. I have therefore removed your inappropriate closure comment. I ask that you be more mindful of policy in the future -- you have violated various policies several times, and in general behaved in a way that I do not feel is appropriate for a wikiquote editor. Thank you for your co-operation ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not delete whole portions of the VFD page, just because you may be impatient with the outcome of a vote. The vote in question has been a source of conflict for quite some time and there should not be any hurry to close discussion on it until it has run its course. In any case, please refrain from such radical edits. ~ UDScott 21:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Amos quote on Abortion[edit]

Please do not just remove quotes from a page without first opening some dialogue on the article's Talk page, where discussion can ensue as to the appropriateness of the quote in question. Wikiquote, and specifically, the article on Abortion should not become the sole province of one person, who lords the editing of the quotes over other users. I'm not trying to dissuade you from healthy discussion around this page, but the manner in which you have made unilateral cuts does not fit with the spirit with which this site is accustomed. Please refrain from such moves, as edit wars do not benefit anyone. Instead, let's have some discussion. Wikiquote strives to be an inclusive quote site, not one in which quotes with which a particular user disagrees are tossed to the side. ~ UDScott 20:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You are not familiar with the ongoing dialogue. I posted most of the quote in question. Someone else removed some of it. I reinstated it with an explanation and only removed it after this same poster kept removing some of the quote. If anyone has followed the rules it is me. But thanks for meddling. Mr. Grace

Abortion comment solicitation[edit]

I invite you to sincerely explain precisely what is wrong with the Abortion page. The fact that some of the quotations made in support of abortion (in an attempt to justify abortion, in order to explain why one supports abortion, or to explain that supporting abortion is crucial despite the disquieting aspects of abortion) are ironic, puzzling or disturbing is not a sign of bias within the page. Rather it is a sign that the page offers a diversity of comment that causes one to think about a controversial issue. I cannot understand your comment that you ae guarding the POV flag. No quotes that support abortion or oppose abortion have been removed or disallowed. Please explain how a diversity of quotes indicates a bias of any sort other than a bias toward diversity? After all is said and done, what grave errors have I committed? - and I trust that while you might prefer I edit other pages, the fact that I only edit one page is NOT an error or against any policy. Mr. Grace

Anyone can edit as many or as few articles as they like. What massive editing of only a single article does is provide ample evidence that the editor has no interest in the project per se, and when done on a controversial subject is almost always a sign of advocacy of a POV. Your use of loaded terms in the comment above adequately demonstrates the problems we've faced attempting to encourage true neutrality in that article. The fact is that many active editors find the killing of unborn humans absolutely wrong, are committed to eradicating it, and use any means available to advocate this opinion. Likewise, other editors find political and religious rules that force women to carry pregancies against their will absolutely immoral, are committed to preventing this, and use any means available to push their views. (Personally, I can symphathize with both views, but not their rabidity, although I understand that as well.) It just happens to be that most of the bias here has in the past been from the former group, but neither is acceptable. Repeating the word "diversity" does not disguise the regular sabotage of quotations supporting either side by both sides. I will not support the removal of this tag until true neutrality can be established. Considering the number of impassioned editors who don't believe there can be a neutral point-of-view on this subject, I doubt this is going to happen any time in the foreseeable future. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
You have not pointed to any instance of any quote being kept off by me due to any bias (in fact, I don't think you can find any). I have added quotations. And otherwise I have kept disruptions off the page and have ensured additions are formatted correctly and in accord with previsously established page consensus. I have consistently invited people to add quotations that support abortion. I have removed no such quotes. You can not point to any way in which my personal POV can be shown to improperly impact the page contents or breach wikiquote rules. Thank you. Mr. Grace
Can you please point to just one instance of the sabotage of any quotation that supports abortion? Likewise, you mention advocacy - but the only advocacy I have done is to add accurate verifiable quotations. My only goal is to ensure that accurate quotes that represent the mainstream views (which include the pro-life view) are present on the page. If you can point to any dearth of quotes for any particular view, I will be surprised. But any such dearth has nothing to do with advocacy by me. I still can't understand how my kee interest in this one page of wikiquote is so bothersome to you. The page has a bounty of quotations representating all views. You cannot refute that. You just keep repeating allegations that you cannot demonstrate to be true in the least. Mr. Grace
Thank you for the reminder that we need an Uncle Remus article here. To quote "The Wonderful Tar Baby Story":
Brer Rabbit keep on axin' 'im, en de Tar-Baby, she keep on sayin' nothin', twel present'y Brer Rabbit draw back wid his fis', he did, en blip he tuck 'er side er de head. Right dar's whar he broke his merlasses jug. His fis' stuck, en he can't pull loose. De tar hilt 'im.
You may have all the time in the world to cajole a reaction out of me, but my interest is in maintaining and improving nearly 6,000 articles. My experience has informed me, as it probably has most of my fellow sysops, that no reasonable amount of involvement will prevent bad-faith edit wars between the two major factions in this article. The recent arguments between you and Catamorphism are an old song to us. Of course you feel that you are editing in good faith, and Catamorphism is the villain. Of course Catamorphism feels s/he is editing in good faith, and you are the villain. I'm sure you both have reasonable arguments (from within your own worldview) about why your edits are proper and the other's are not. I don't have time to deal with your inability to come to a consensus. All I can offer is ensuring that this article be clearly tagged as a POV dispute until both sides come to me with a mutually agreeable arrangement. Work it out between yourselves. If you can't do that, I can't help you. I will not respond to further cajoling from either of you, except to ensure that tag stays while the controversy exits. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that in fact you cannot point to any instance in which my editing has done anything other than ensure the abortion page represents ALL points of view. You have proven my point. Mr. Grace

I'm afraid your command of logic appears a bit faulty. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In this particular case, it is explicitly absence of cooperation, and your refusal to accept this and to attempt to cast it as something else is exactly the kind of sophistry I've alluded to. Thank you for demonstrating (not proving) my point. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Woopsie! You have DEMONSTRATED my point - I used the wrong word (flog me!!!). You get my drift, though. You are too busy to make a valid critique, so you make one based on your gut reaction. Of course, the critique you make really can't be that I am violating NPOV because there are no instances of that you can point to. And without some evidence of it, the critique is hot air from you. You have nothing objective upon which to base your charge. Perhaps you think wikimedia resources ought to be edited - by gut reaction and whimsy. But fairminded people think objectivity is what matters. Mr. Grace

I simply repose my original questions - which you have failed to answer:

  • Please explain how a diversity of quotes indicates a bias of any sort other than a bias toward diversity? After all is said and done, what grave errors have I committed?

Mr. Grace

Easing permanent block[edit]

Mr Grace, I received your emailed appeal for a reversal of Essjay's permanent block on your account which occurred because you were found to be trolling admins (maybe just admin — me — based on your user-contributiions page). I believe that you have been deemed a troll largely because of two activities which you refuse to acknowledge or stop:

  1. You won't accept the fact, repeatedly explained to you, that the Wikiquote admin staff does not have the time to engage in POV debates over a single article that they have already spent fruitless months trying to sort out. You were not around for those efforts (unless you are an anon editor who simply registered since then), so you may not be aware of the considerable history of this article. As a newcomer, you would be showing good faith by sifting through the discussion histories and focusing on working with the other article editors. Instead, you spend you time harrassing the already overworked admins to take more action than they believe they can do, based on that experience.
  2. You have repeatedly attempted to turn this debate over article POV into a criticism of these overworked admins by demanding that they prove to you a point they've long ago made, as if it is their responsibility to justify their experience to a latecomer, when it is your responsibility to demonstrate that there is no longer a problem, which I specifically asked you to do. (I trust you remember my statement: "Work it out between yourselves. If you can't do that, I can't help you.")

I also see that MosheZadka posted warnings to you about interfering with the VfD process, which on Wikiquote is a fast-track to blocking for disruption.

Essjay, being a Wikipedia admin, probably has more troll-blocking experience than I do. Also, Wikiquote doesn't even have a formal blocking policy yet; Wikiquote:Blocking policy is still in draft stage, not having had enough attention from the community to finalize it. (That indicates how thinly spread our frequent editors are, especially those concerned with project maintenance.) It is natural for us to defer to Wikipedian policy and experience unless there is a compelling reason not to.

Editors that demonstrate a true desire to help the project through good-faith editing and civil discussion with their opponents would certainly merit review of any long-term blocking. The only trait you've consistently demonstrated to me so far is the ability to seize on weaknesses and attack effectively, whether it be unanswered arguments in a debate or finding the right admin to appeal to in order to overturn another's decision.[1] You have yet to agree, as I specifically asked, to attempt to work with Catamorphism before coming to me with an article worth reviewing for NPOV. Instead, you have been sucker-punching me with my inability to do justice to the Abortion debate, which I have already acknowledged.

Nevertheless, I will give you one more chance to demonstrate good-faith participation in Wikiquote. I am changing the block on your account to two weeks, which I consider to be a minimum cool-down period. During this time, I will also ask Catamorphism not to edit Abortion. (They haven't been blocked because they haven't been harrassing anyone, at least that anyone has complained about. In fact, unlike you, they seem to be making general edits to other articles and even reverting spam in some unrelated pages, although clearly they're just as involved in the current "Abortion" debate as you are.) Once your block is removed, I ask again that you and Catamorphism work together, along with any other "Abortion" editors, to find acceptable compromises and come to me (or any other admin) with a request to remove the POV tag. Only then will we (and I suppose that means I, as my fellow admins have thus far been too smart to get stuck to this tar-baby) take the considerable time to carefully review the entire article and its discussion pages to determine if there is a true consensus, and not just one side having exhausted the other side. However, if you resume your daily demands for intervention without working with the other editors, you will be blocked again. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^  I am giving you ample opportunity with this posting to demonstrate whether you are more interested in winning arguments or participating in cooperative editing. There are many points here which you can easily attack. Whether you choose to resume criticizing me for my admitted inadequacies or to take the time and effort to work out compromises is entirely up to you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: You sent me not one but two irate emails within hours of this posting, repeating and expanding upon the tirade of my wretched injustice while ignoring or dismissing the rationale for the actions that have been taken against you. I feel confident these actions will not be reversed by any independent Wikimedia Foundation reviewer, regardless of their own views on abortion, because they are based on general WM practices, not self-serving selections of them, something you seem unable or unwilling to accept, apparently because your own knowledge and experience of wiki practices seems to go no further than to find enough material to craft arguments to complain about sysops who have demonstrated long-term, general service to the project, rather than a one-topic passion. This gives me little hope that this 2-week block won't be followed up very quickly by a restoration of the permanent block. Unless you demonstrate convincingly that you understand the meaning of cooperative editing and working toward consensus, as you've been advised over and over again, your complaints will only be self-defeating by losing the sole audience you've had. I recommend that you have a substantive email conversation with GordonWattsDotCom, who shares your passionate views against abortion but has managed to work with editors of all persuasions nonetheless, about how to accomplish your goals within the framework of Wikiquette. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC) speaks:

I hate to offend anyone, but you can't always please everyone. Also, I have a duty to speak up and contribute, if I can, so let me try:

| This diff here, of Mr. Grace's edit on Abortion, the "Revision as of 07:35, 12 February 2006," is a perfect example to show the problems of all users:

First off, Mr. Grace calls Catamorphism a vandal. Even though I am very conservative and oppose the liberal ideals of Catamorphism, I think she is adding good material that is not harmful or a cause of bias, and thus I conclude that the edit comment, "restoring quote delted [sic] by vandal - please don't vandalize," is inappropriate, even offensive.

That said, however, both Catamorphism AND Mr. Grace correctly quoted the speaker, because the speaker was quoted slightly differently by different sources:

| This source (Original site: 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence) supports Catamorphism's quote, containing such as "As the nation passes the thirty-third anniversary..."

However, | This source (Original site: 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence) supports Mr. Grace's version, which contains the variant language, "As the nation marked the 33rd anniversary..."

My point is that both editors quoted correctly, but I have THESE gripes:

Both editors could have (and, I think, should have) added a link to remove ambiguity and doubt.

Also, Mr. Grace removed (deleted) some valid quotes and alleged vandalism on the part of Catamorphism. While I don't think that abortion serves ANY useful purpose (except possibly if the world population makes crowding life unbearable, calling for "self-defense of the human race), I don't object to her placing these quotes, since it does not appear to harm anything.

I am big-time grieved that people would argue over a simple process of adding quotes. TIME-CONSUMING? Yes, editing is time-consuming and a pain, sometimes, but if someone edits and contributes, please do not bother them. We have so many positive abilities and potential, so let's not waster our time arguing over non-essentials. Mr. Grace seems to have many good skills he can contribute, so this grieves me.

I will try to set a good example: While I disagree with the removal of the quotes I made, on the basis that I am "notable," due to my involvement in a high-profile court case, I am not mad at Mr. Grace for pointing this out, and I'm not mad at Jeff for agreeing with it. I accept concensus.

Please, everybody, try to get along. --GordonWattsDotCom 04:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


Look, man, this quote that you are removing from abortion is totally legit. If you want to find and add a context to it, I'm more than happy but he was talking about abortion. The fact that most people who republish it are peddling bushisms is irrelevant. There is no evidence to suggest that this context is made up. You can probably find this quote thousands of places on the internet, all of which (if they provide a context) will confirm the one that I have given. I'm not going to get into a revert war with you over something so trivial, but I would suggest that you revert yourself and readd the quote. It's fine to want to add more context to a quote, but Wiki 101 is that you never decrease the amount of content in the process. In other words, if someone was adding a sentence with a typo, you fix the typo rather than removing that sentence. I'll try to find the transcript for you, but in the meantime, I think that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that this quote is talking about abortion for it to stay. Many of the quotes on that page do not even say where the quote way allegedly said; therefore, the non-uniform removal of quotes is bound to give the appearance of foul play. Savidan 19:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This edit of yours seems overzealous as well. Aristotle is talking about "birth control policy" which is pretty close considering it wasn't called abortion at that time. He also advocates killing unwanted infants so it is safe to assume that quote is germane as well. Savidan 20:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)