User talk:Arjuna909/Archive 1

Hello, Arjuna909/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Arjuna909. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Welcome!

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Khoikhoi 19:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry to bother you, but I notice you've just added a series of references to the ocean acidification article. I think they're good ones to add, but could you reference them in the article please? In the next couple of years there'll be no shortage of scientific papers on the subject, so I reckon it'd be best only to add new references if they make a new point relevant to the article (or supplant an older reference). Anyway, you may well be planning on doing this anyway. Cheers, --Plumbago 10:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I think there might be an error in the top reference. The page numbers it cites aren't quite right, 351-33, but I'm not au fait with the reference.

Aloha. Good point - hadn't really had time to take the crack at it that I'd like to, namely adding additional detail mainly based on the Royal Society report and other papers - fish hypercampnia/acidosis etc. Just wanted to get the info up for the layman. So in the interim, I'll switch over most of the previous new references I added to a new section on "Further Readings". Cheers. Arjuna 02:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I'd forgotten to add these other effects to the article, so it's good that you're thinking about them. If you can extend the article with details about them, that'd be great - especially as I think the organisms that are affected are more familiar to the layman reading the article (who's probably never heard of a foram). Cheers, --Plumbago 09:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It's going to take me a bit to get that up, but will work on it. Btw, I forgot to change the page numbers but will get to that tomorrow. Aloha, Arjuna 09:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Arjuna. I'm a bit concerned about your edit here. I know it's internationally recognized as Papua, and thanks for making the article more neutral, but is that accurate? I'm saying that because Papua is only part of Western New Guinea, it seems that we're forgetting West Irian Jaya Province. What I'm trying to say is, why would Western New Guinea be recognized as Papua if Papua only comprises part of Western New Guinea? --Khoikhoi 03:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The reason why we have an article about western New Guinea is because of a large dispute two years ago between these two users. One user wanted to push the Papuan POV, and call it West Papua, but "western New Guinea" is more neutral, because it's more geographical then political. Yes, perhaps something could be mentioned at the top of the article.

Oh, by the way, new comments on talk pages always go at the bottom. And don't forget to sign your name like this: ~~~~. --Khoikhoi 21:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed the format of the userboxes on your userpage to a table format which should be more manageable for you. If you don't like it, you're welcome to revert it. I also updated the location of one userbox and removed two deleted userboxes. — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 02:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)}

Hey Arjuna, thanks for your note. I appreciate your concern regarding the Akaka Bill, but it seems you're still a bit misinformed. Considering both the Morgan Report of 1894 and the Native Hawaiians Study Comission report of 1983 as "whitewashes" isn't really fair at all. Certainly, the Morgan Report conclusions and testimony were never challenged or recanted (the way testimony to Blount was), and the bigger problem with the Apology Bill is its complete lack of historical accuracy and operative provisions (as noted by the Supreme Court in Rice v. Cayetano, which cited it but made its judgement based on facts in the record).

Furthermore, I'm concerned that you feel it necessary to label activists who challenge the historical mythology of the hawaiian sovereignty movement as "conservative". It would be just as NPOV to label the sovereignty activists as "radical" or "extremist". It seems like an inappropriate word for the context, when a more neutral stance can be taken.

If you have specific questions regarding the facts of what transpired in 1893, I encourage you to read the both the Blount Report, the Morgan Report, and the Native Hawaiians Study Comission report (all online). I'm more than willing to help you find specific information, and thank you very much for helping with the article! --JereKrischel 23:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, almost forgot, here are the links to the various reports: NHSC Report (1983), Morgan Report, 1894, Blount Report (1893). --JereKrischel 23:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Last thing, regarding "broad support for the bill" - what you say is true on the political level (nearly all of the political insiders in Hawaii are staunchly for the Akaka Bill), but it is clearly not true for the general population - see this recent survey regarding the Akaka Bill. One can speculate as to why the political machine in Hawaii has lined up behind the Akaka Bill (perhaps for a bigger share of federal dollars, or pandering to what is seen as a "swing vote"), but they are clearly out of sync with the general population. --JereKrischel 23:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the U.S. Government had no role in encouraging the overthrow? Really? The Morgan report has never been challenged? Really? What is your source for this assertion? I don't take native Hawaiian sovereignty activists, many of whom I would completely agree with you are radical and extremist, at face value, and conversely, you might find it both salubrious and instructive to not always take official government reports at face value.

Interesting word you use there, "encouraging". I think the case can be made that annexation was encouraged (and in fact was negotiated as early as Kamehameha III, who died before he was able to sign the treaty he had agreed to), but that's a far cry from asserting that U.S. peacekeepers or Minister Stevens directly aided or abetted the Committee of Safety.

Insofar as challenges to the Morgan Report, my understanding is that there was one editorial in 1898 that critiqued it and defended Cleveland, but no further investigations, nor court cases, nor evidence was ever brought forth (and certainly, people as powerful as Cleveland and Liliuokalani had the means with which to bring forward additional evidence). My sources include the Morgan Report, the Blount Report, the Native Hawaiians Study Comission Report, Gavan Daws (Shoal of Time), Ernest Andrade (Unconquerable Rebel), Twigg-Smith (Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the Facts Matter?), Kuykendall, newspapers of the era, and of course pro-sovereignty pamphlets, books and websites.

I think you're right to be skeptical of the government reports, which is why I was always more interested in the details of testimony than the digested opinions of the committees. The government report of Blount was especially interesting, being a secret investigation which was being used by Cleveland to pressure President Dole to reinstate the Queen...check out The Rest of The Rest of The Story for a quick overview on how Blount and Morgan crossed paths. --JereKrischel 05:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to have Bruce Fein's report mentioned and linked up, that's totally legit. However, if so then the article should also balance it with the alternative POV.

Isn't the alternative POV the Apology Resolution itself? Although people have attacked Fein's character and motivations, to date I haven't seen any rebuttal to the points he brought up...and believe me, I've looked!

If no one has explicity rebutted him, then perhaps that is because those involved in the debate didn't think it even merited such attention.

That's another ad hominem attack, though - on the merits, on the facts themselves, no rebuttal has occured because there are no rational responses. It was given enough attention to attack his character, in an attempt to discredit his assertions - had there been real arguments to be made, I'm sure they would have happened. Of course, I could be wrong, and maybe somewhere out there someone has done a detailed rebuttal. The problem I have though is that instead of providing an alternative POV reference that was a detailed rebuttal, all there were were ad hominem attacks. Granted, we can't really know whether or not that was because someone was too busy to do a real rebuttal, or because, as I claim, there is no response, but until then, echoing character attacks doesn't seem to be very NPOV.

As for the poll results you cite, you're going to have to come up with a more unbiased source than GI, who obviously has a dog in this fight.

Unfortunately, every poll ever conducted on the issue has been by a source that could be seen as biased (OHA got interesting results with a set of particularly leading questions once). If you read the GRIH questions, I think you can get a good idea of any bias that might be there - they also released their raw data so you can chop it up how you like.

I actually don't have a dog in this fight, but when I look up a Wikipedia article, I want the facts, not bias, which is what comes through in many of your edits. In any event, rather than get into a revert war, why don't we try to work cooperatively to find some neutral language we can all agree on?

My apologies if bias seems to permeate my edits - I do strive towards NPOV, and I know I'm not always successful (which is exactly why I appreciate your help!). I am particular about the facts though, and I'm afraid sometimes the bald statement of fact is not always NPOV. I'm sure together we can find compromise wording! --JereKrischel 05:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Arjuna --- Anyone who states or believes (claims or conjectures, actually) that it was the intent of "the USA" to participate in overthrowing the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893 is faced with an insurmountable reality that rips the false belief to shreds: the friendship of US president Grover Cleveland with Hawaiian queen Liliuokalani, and Cleveland's initial efforts to aid the restoration of her rule. It has never been a secret that Cleveland personally entertained then-queen Kapiolani and then-princess Liliuokalani at the White House in 1887. Hawaiian-language accounts of their relationship show that it was definitely friendship. Not only that, Cleveland's foreign policy of not interfering in other countries' affairs has been known for over a hundred years. Under Cleveland, there was NO WAY that "the USA" would help to overthrow his personal friend Liliuokalani, as an intentional foreign policy decision of his administration. Agent X 21:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In the spirit of full disclosure, Cleveland had been elected by January 17, 1893, but he had not been inagurated - he took office in March of 1893. That being said, Agent X is correct in pointing out that President Cleveland arguably made every effort, in secret, to restore the Queen to the throne. As a personal fan of Cleveland, who was a veto-mad president who had a child out of wedlock and didn't ever give into political pressure, I have to believe that the only thing that could have ended his support of the Queen was incontrovertible fact. He wrote very strongly on December 18, 1893 regarding what he termed an "act of war", and I can only believe that he would not have given up on his convictions unless proven wrong.

Mahalo again, Arjuna, for your help. As you can tell from my off-wikipedia writing, I have taken this whole era of history very seriously, and any help you can give me in keeping my tone NPOV is greatly appreciated. --JereKrischel 04:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am the original author of the Blount Report entry on Wikipedia. Thanks for your helpful contributions, as I have not reviewed the page for a while. It is interesting that the page receives as much attention as it does - no one bothered to create one for a long time, well after the existence of the Morgan Report and "Republic of Hawaii" entries, whose author you have heard from already. It was as if...someone was trying to pretend it didn't exist. My interests aren't so parochial that I can keep an eye on the page every day, so I appreciate. If we can draw a critical mass of Hawaii-related contributors to these and similar pages, perhaps we'll achieve truly-NPOV and encyclopedic entries on these topics. Huangdi 06:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This was a nice addition that you made. Do you have a citation for it? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't have a citation (yet) -- but will locate the paper describing the species. I work with conservation orgs and museums on biodiversity research in Papua, and this was information I got straight from Flannery himself prior to publishing the paper. That said, I will check to confirm. Arjuna 01:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed. It was described from a single (damaged) specimen collected in 1961. This is in the Flannery/Groves paper. Arjuna 01:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you be able to write up this section of Fauna of New Guinea? I have no sources for it, and don't even have a clue what could be up there (except for Dugongs). --liquidGhoul 08:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your courteous and helpful response.

I think my main point was that the word "still" implies continuation of previous activity. c.f. "Are you still beating your wife?" makes the assumption that the person was definitely beating his wife at some stage, and the only question isw whether he has stopped. Similarly, to say that the assylum seekers claimed genocide is still taking place, implies that it is beyond doubt that genocide was taking place previously and the only question is whether or not it is continuing today. On this basis I removed the word "still". It is true that the assylum seekers claimed genocide was taking place. Ordinary Person 00:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

Can you named any important habitat that has been eliminated in New Guinea. I thought most of New Guinea's forests still intact ? especially in Western New Guinea. I know that Indonesian government have the so-called "transmigration" program to Papua. Also, do you know any birds species in New Guinea that is endangered now, affected directly by this conversion and elimination of forests? It's good to have New Guinea's update, since most of the time the western side is relatively closed to non-Indonesian.--Stavenn 12:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Aloha. Well, there are a couple of assumptions inherent in your question that are problematic. It is pretty difficult to define "important" habitat -- certainly (contrary to what you may have assumed) selective logging has been extensive in the north coast of the island (both PNG and Papua), in Bird's Head; there is also widespread forest conversion for agriculture (mainly oil palm) in other areas of both the mainland and other islands (ex. New Britain/New Ireland). So how important those areas are for widespread or restricted range species is really not known very well, but presumably habitat loss has some effect and not of the good variety. This is certainly the case under the standard species/area curve models. Second, habitat doesn't have to be eliminated to be less viable for certain species; degradation of the forest by logging etc. can certainly negatively impact important food resources available for those species.

As for whether there are any endangered birds, the answer is yes. WWF reports that "...the most widespread and serious threat to birds in PNG is loss of habitat. In particular from unsustainable commercial logging and conversion of primary rainforest to oil palm plantations in the lowlands, and from subsistence and cash crop agriculture where population density is high (such as the highland valleys). Papua New Guinea has one Critically Endangered, two Engangered, and 28 Vulnerable bird species listed in the IUCN Red Data Book." (http://www.worldwildlife.org/expeditions/newguinea/read_1.cfm) I can report authoritatively that the situation in regards to logging/agricultural conversion on the Papua side of the border is similar to the PNG side, but since it is much harder to carry out scientific surveys to ascertain the population status of bird (or other) species, more precise assessments are difficult. However, IUCN and Birdlife estimate that about 129 bird species in New Guinea, about 3/4 of which are endemics, are under some level of conservation threat.

Hope this answers your questions. Aloha. Arjuna 02:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Arjuna, thanks for the reply and explanation. About the intact forests, I didn't assumed (I shouldn't said "thought" on the previous message :)), it's from New Guinea-related books and browsing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4688000.stm) about the recent big news from New Guinea. I didn't search for logging and other threats on the web. I know it happened in every forests, but I didn't know it already affected important birds habitat (Endemic Bird Areas by BirdLife International?) in New Guinea (it will in the future, but for now, compare to nearby Java, Sumatra or Borneo and other rainforests, New Guinea is relatively safe. This one I assumed). My mistake.

As for birds, all three endangered species mentioned above: Beck's Petrel, White-eyed Starling and Yellow-legged Pigeon are found in Solomon Islands, Bismarck Archipelago and Bougainville Island of Papua New Guinea, but not in New Guinea. If the article includes New Guinea's surrounding islands, the numbers need to be updated.

Since the threats (settlements, logging, road building, mining, hunting, introduced species, agriculture, pets, etc) are affected any wildlife, not only birds, is it better to put your edit on the section that includes all fauna?

Thank you for your response and help. Terimakasih--Stavenn 05:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stavenn dan terima kasih atas balasanya. Here's another report you might be interested in: http://www.eia-international.org/cgi/reports/reports.cgi?t=template&a=93. You're quite right that the situation isn't as terrible (yet) for either side of NG as it is on Sumatra or Kalimantan -- but the lowland habitat is so degraded or destroyed in those places that it would indeed be sad to have to judge it based on that standard, no? Conservation International lists both of those (Jawa too for that matter) as "Hotspots" as opposed to New Guinea which is a "Wilderness Area (misleading term) that is still (relatively) intact but going fast. Basically, western Indonesia and Malaysia having largely been depleted of readily accessible timber, the companies are moving on further east to Papua, PNG, Solomon Islands, and the Amazon -- increasingly to satisfy the growing demand from China. The mountainous areas in NG have some degree of natural protection from logging and oil palm, for obvious reasons, and you are right that one of the main threats to vertebrates in the uplands is from over-hunting. I think it would be great if you had a list of which species are listed by IUCN or CITES as endangered or threatened -- I don't believe in being alarmist but rather having the most accurate data out there (which is depressing enough). I also agree with you that the discussion of the threats would be better in another section. If you are familiar with the Ecology of Indonesia book series, you may be interested to know that the last volume, "Ecology of Papua" will be coming out hopefully before the end of the year.... Aloha! Arjuna 05:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Arjuna, thank you again for the update and valuable infos. I really appreciated it. Btw, nice name :). Regards, Stavenn 03:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I rolled that edit back as it is the type of wording that brings edit wars, particularly in this type of page. I hope you understand. Feel free to edit out any similarly-toned commentary as you find it.Kukini 01:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Such labels are NOT critical context. They are divisive and can be seen as QUITE POV. Kukini 01:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite clearly, I disagree. Hugh Hewitt does not have the name recognition of, say, the Dalai Lama, so some context is necessary. If you object to an accurate description of his POV, then how about just "talk radio host" -- which at least indicates that he comes from a particular (non-scholarly) kind of perspective. Arjuna 01:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That is fine (regarding the talk show host). I actually agree with your political perspective here (see my userpage for hints to this end). But deleting the Rush quote, with citation is a bit overboard, and will likely draw fire in an edit war with those who see things differently. I leave you to it, although that was your third revert in 24 hours. Something you really should consider avoiding. Best, Kukini 01:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and appreciate your comments, although I still disagree with you on the Limbaugh quote as well. Limbaugh's comment was outside the mainstream and beyond the pale, and Wikipedia should not be a forum for presenting extremist propoganda points. Just because someone, even someone noteworthy, says something does not necessarily make it worth repeating. To take a reductio ad absurdum, if someone else comes along and blames issue X on "the Jews", that hardly merits giving such comments attention. Aloha. Arjuna 02:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Point well made. I believe I may have overreacted to you based on the amount of extreme reactions spurred by this upcoming dramatization. If you would consider helping me keep the page relatively neutral, I would greatly appreciate it. Kukini 03:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and I will. I am not prone to POV pushing (though I certainly have a POV) and strongly agree that articles should strive to be fair and as neutral as possible. Aloha. Arjuna 04:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Arjuna, thanks for the help with the Bayonet Constitution wording - you're right, "derisively" was npov, even if technically accurate. I think the reason why it matters to me is because of the common misunderstanding that the "Bayonet Constitution" was named so because it was signed by Kalakaua with a bayonet literally at his throat. The "Bayonet" was figurative, and I think the name often overshadows the real, substantive political struggle that was occuring at the time between William Gibson's faction, and local "conservatives" (for lack of a better term). Being clear about the origin of the nickname seems to me an important thing to note. Anyway, thanks again for your help, I appreciate the alternative perspective - it is helping move these articles forward. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 18:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

May I ask why you had a problem with adding an External Links section, and specifically, had a problem with the particular link? Thanks. Arjuna 19:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The website is under construction. I found no information there. Come back later when you are done, but also read WP:COI and WP:EL. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It violates WP:EL and WP:COI. Leave it off. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof is upon you to explain how the site "violates" [WP:EL] or [WP:COI] -- I have read them and can find no such conflict. Arjuna 20:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you the author (or primary contributor) to that site's creation? If so, then it violates WP:EL and WP:COI. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I have nothing to do with it, which one would be able to tell by noting that from my user page that I live in Hawaii, while the person who created the website is a professor in Singapore. Arjuna 19:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I reported the editwar on Tarsier at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Arjuna808 and User:UtherSRG reported by User:Ucucha (Result:). Ucucha 06:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The article you wrote, Asmat regency, is uncategorized. Please help improve it by adding it to one or more categories, so it may be associated with related articles. A stub marker or other template doesn't count - please put in an actual category in the article. Eli Falk 12:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Much of that stuff you removed is probably verifiable - although I agree totally with all your comments in your edit sums. I was intending to put those tags back in a few days. He is a problem editor - keeps rambling on about his personal views without providing citataions. WP:CIVIL prevents me commenting further if you know what i mean.

It would have been helpful if he'd provided page numbers and in-line cites. He's gone and 'retailiated' by throwing {{fact}} and {{cn}}Indonesia but in a way it is good thing. Ie, I enjoy the challenge and it can only help the article if those things are verified. So don't revert him in Indonesia!!! kind regards. Merbabu 12:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's airing tonight on Discovery, 8pm Eastern. Just thought I'd post this here to minimise the chance of you missing it. SheffieldSteel 18:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo for your edits Arjuna808, I hope we can work more effectively together on some of the articles we've been disagreeing on. You have an important POV, which needs to be respected, but I think we can both do a better job if we work harder on finding good citations rather than simply copy-editing back and forth without some sort of compromise.

Do you think we could discuss for a while some possible compromises we could come to? In particular:

It's awfully important that Blount flatly refused to take testimony from anti-royalists who volunteered. We really shouldn't redact that information.

We really need to find some sort of agreement on the use of "alleged".

We should be finding balance on articles not by removing sourced, and appropriate material, but by adding in balancing material.

Do you have any citations about non-sovereignty activist supporters who allege that the U.S. was part of a conspiracy to overthrow the monarchy? You used the word "many", can you give a single citation, and maybe just note that citation directly?

Can we focus together on one particular issue you find concern with, and get to the root of the matter, before continuing to revert each other? I'm sure we can find a good compromise if we work together. --JereKrischel 03:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo Arjuna, for your contributions lately, but I think we're butting heads for no reason. Can we discuss some sort of compromise between "alleged" and simply asserting that there is no ambiguity as to the U.S. role in the 1893 Hawaiian Revolution? I'm getting the feeling that somehow it is becoming an emotional dispute, and that I've done something to terribly offend you. I apologize for any offense you may have taken, and hope we can work together to find some common ground. I'd be happy to work this out in email if you'd like to have a conversation "off the record" as it were, or just discuss it on our talk pages. Please get back to me, mahalo! --JereKrischel 14:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Aloha, Arjuna. I've tried to contact you via email as well as on this talk page - please, let's discuss our disagreements before breaching 3RR. I'm interested in understanding how we can reach a compromise, but simply blanket reverting my edits without either adding citation, or finding a compromise isn't very constructive. Please email me back, and we can talk further. Mahalo. --JereKrischel 00:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Aloha, Arjuna. You are about to violate 3RR on History of Hawaii. If you do, I will report it for administrator action. Mahalo. --JereKrischel 21:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

E kala mai, Arjuna, but you have violated WP:3RR on History of Hawaii, and have been reported. --JereKrischel 21:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. Here are the reverts in question. Nishkid 64 00:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Aloha. As I told JK on his talk page, I would be happy to help mediate this dispute. I would also like to see involved editors utilize WP Hawaii resources. This could mean creating new Hawaii-related guidelines for articles, conducting a poll, or drawing input from active members. Am I correct in assuming that the bulk of the current dispute/discussion is or should be taking place on Talk:History of Hawaii? If so, I will address any issues on that page if you prefer. —Viriditas | Talk 01:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo Arjuna, for your kind words. My apologies for pushing your buttons - it is awfully difficult to come across as polite, sincere and genuine without the typical cues of voice and body language, and I'm sorry if either my edit habits or tone have offended. I think I've made a significant mistake in starting revert wars with you, and what I should probably have done is ask you on your talk page to revert yourself, instead of being aggressive with editing immediately. To be perfectly honest, HCR82 has been getting under my skin and it is probably showing in my edit style.

I'm more than happy to remove "alleged" for now from all the pages, and work with you to find a good solution to our dispute. If you'd like, I'll make the edits myself and we can both give ourselves a week or so to hash it out before jumping back in with edits (or whatever timeline you think may be appropriate). Let me know on my talk page, and have a great weekend. I'll be in LegoLand with the family, and will get back on Monday. Aloha! --JereKrischel 05:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo for your concerns, Arjuna. I've done a comparison of S.147 and S.310 here, and would appreciate your help in making neutral note of specific differences directly in the Akaka bill article. Much of it I would probably assert has no functional bearing, but IANALegislator, and I'm noticably skeptical. Interesting ones are not requiring native Hawaiian blood to be on the commission, and taking away some of the Governor of Hawaii's role in regards to the proposed "United States Office For Native Hawaiian Relations". Original S.147 and S.310 here.

Please, feel free to add back specific HeartlyHear items if you think you can help address some of the concerns I already shared with him. Aloha! --JereKrischel 08:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Arjuna, please undo your recent revert of the Akaka Bill article. I made very specific objections to HeartlyHear's mass changes, and would appreciate the opportunity to work at them one at a time. I believe he has some important points to add, and I would like to help him add them in the correct format and with proper attribution. Moving fast alone is not going to work as well as moving slowly together. Mahalo. --JereKrischel 23:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Aloha Arjuna, I am proceeding as you suggested, using the changes you reverted back to as a base line, and handling each one under an individual "fix" section in talk to deal with specific issues. I'm doing this in good faith, and hope you don't misunderstand my process.

For every change I'm making, I'm creating an "updates" section regarding that fix. We can address specific issues in that section, and work on balancing our concerns. Your input into each of these sections is greatly appreciated! Mahalo! --JereKrischel 03:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo for your kind words Arjuna. I greatly appreciate your challenges to my viewpoint and edits, because you are both passionate about what you believe and willing to forgive others for their passion. You make me a better wikipedian, and I appreciate that. --JereKrischel 03:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo for the head's up Arjuna, I've made a few additional edits to the Akaka Bill article, pruning some text which seems purely speculative regarding the text of the bill, and adding in the tribal recognition criteria in the same place where claims are being made that provisions of the bill are onerous compared to those placed on tribes - it seems to fit well in that section. I haven't checked the list of prior versions yet, but I'll try and get around to that too. Aloha! --JereKrischel 04:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Aloha Arjuna, hope all is well! I tagged the recent Akaka Bill edits as POV pushing for two specific reasons - 1) asserting its "purpose" seems like an invitation to POV pushing, and taking the favorable committee report as definitive certainly doesn't seem appropriate. 2) The emphasis on "aboriginal, indigenous, native people" seems like an attempt to lead into the next paragraph as an inline argument, citing 20 USC 7512, and it doesn't fit, since the following cite regarding recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom is notably recognition of the multi-racial Hawaiian Kingdom, not some aboriginal tribal government. You're probably right that it isn't particularly blatant, but I felt it was a bit skewed nonetheless. Perhaps it is just better to revert it as poorly fitting in with the article, but it did appear to me to be a subtle POV push...perhaps I'll use "subtle" in my edit comment next time :). Anyway, good to hear from you again!

Oh, and one other thing, I added back in a better formatted reference in the Sanford Dole article - it seems better to keep in that direct reference, since it's one of the few freely downloadable books regarding that period of history. I also added a reference to a more pro-sovereignty POV as well, a pamphlet with fairly radical sovereignty credentials. Hopefully that helps balance things. --JereKrischel 03:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Arjuna, could you please put specific notes in the talk pages of all the articles you tagged with POV? Mahalo! --JereKrischel 23:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, I didn't see adding the tags as an escalation of any sort - I assume you have specific reasons and just hadn't had time to put them into the articles yet. I'd appreciate it if you'd consider undoing your revert on Akaka Bill as well. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 01:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Aloha Arjuna. Asserting that there are "too many to mention" in Daws' Shoal of Time is not an appropriate reference. Please provide at least one if there are so many. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 20:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Insofar as my specific references, if you have any specific question on material, I can provide a more specific citation than already exists. I can cite pages from Blount, Morgan, Kuykendall, Daws, Andrade, Kirch, and any number of articles from JSTOR. I certainly need to do more citations, but I promise I will never assert that you should accept my statements without challenging me to provide a specific citation. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 20:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Pages 270-275 in the paperback edition. Whether you agree with this or not, such scholarship is generally seen as supportive of the historical claims of injustice. And as for "too many to mention", this is applying a different standard to my references when you do not follow the same format yourself. Please be consistent if you're going to start down this road. Aloha. Arjuna 20:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What lines on page 270-275? I don't see how your read asserts what you're stating. --JereKrischel 20:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps what you need to do is show me a reference that claims that his scholarship is "generally seen as supportive". I simply don't see how you can make that claim based on those pages. --JereKrischel 20:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, could you please make some sort of attempt to edit the talk page regarding our disagreements, rather than simply reverting? Mahalo! --JereKrischel 20:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Example of Daws being cited not being "generally supportive" of the Apology Resolution: http://www.angelfire.com/planet/bigfiles40/MLK-Liliu.html "Historian Gavan Daws describes it this way: "The grounds of her home at Washington Place were searched, and in the garden the searchers found what they were looking for -- a regular ammunition dump; twenty-one bombs, some of them made with coconut shells; more than thirty rifles; thirty-eight cartridge belts and about a thousand rounds of ammunition; and some pistols and swords."" (Gavan Daws, "Shoal of Time" (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1974), pp. 282-283) --JereKrischel 20:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"Wiltze seemed to approve what the Committee planned" (p. 270) -- clear demonstration of prior knowledge and support of a conspiracy. You may disagree with whether or not there was a conspiracy (and it is not even relevant whether there was -- i.e. I'm not trying to get back into the argument now), but at the very least it is read by supporters of the AP as evidence to their grievance. This is beyond dispute. Arjuna 20:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote on the Talk:Liliuokalani page... The mention of bombs being found at her home is potentially misleading. Daws says, "The grounds of her home...were searched, and in the garden the searchers found what they were looking for -- a regular ammunition dump..." (bold added), Daws, p. 282-3). This can quite easily be read (as perhaps the author intended?) to suggest that the material was planted there and so the searchers therefore knew exactly where to look. At the very least, the evidence is ambiguous and will probably always remain so. Cheers, Arjuna 06:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a paperback first printing (1974) of Shoal of Time, and couldn't find your citation on page 270. Do you have a different version? I found your cite on p.272. Regarding that citation, the full quote is:

One man went to interview Captain G.C. Wiltse of the USS Boston, which was in port at the time, and Wiltse seemd to approve what the Committee planned. Lorrin Thurston and two others talked to United States Minister John L. Stevens, and he put no impediment in their path;

No impediment is not prior knowledge and support of a conspiracy, and neither was it a conspiracy since it was an open challenge to the Queen at the time. The Committee of Safety was publicly declared, and the Queen was well informed by her ministers (who were the ones to approach Lorrin Thurston and William O. Smith). "While the legislature was in its last hours Minister of the Interior John F. Colburn and Attorney General Arthur P. Peterson went downtown to find someone to advise them. They found the right people - Lorrin Thurston and William O. Smith" - p271, my version.

To read found what they were looking for as the material was planted there is a stretch -> if anything, it reads that they were hoping to find some connection between her and the revolutionaries, which by all accounts existed. The queen stated in her book, "I remember that I had occasion to scold my gardener for the disturbed condition in which I often found my plants. It seemed as though some persons had been digging up the ground, and replacing disturbed soil. But no arms were secreted by me or by my orders about the place, from the roof to the cellar, or from one end to the other of the garden, nor were any kept there to my knowledge, save parlor rifles and harmless old-fashioned muskets." (CHAPTER XLII, Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen) To suggest that her staff were somehow in conspiracy with the Provisional Government is a real stretch. Whether or not she was telling the truth about her knowledge of them is an open question.

Anyway, the closest thing you can get out of Daws that supports the royalist POV is this (p276-277):

So good government triumphed, and the "overwhelming majority of the conservative and responsible members of the community" could breathe easy. But not quite, because the "overwhelming majority" amounted in reality to a few hundred men; in fact it would better be described as a determined and rather lucky minority. Not since the days of Kamehameha the Great had the Hawaiians distinguished themselves as a fighting people, and even the wildest of Hawaiian insurrectionaries, Robert Wilcox, was more likely to assail his enemies with words than with bullets. Just the same, the revolution would hardly have gone so well without the presence of the Boston's bluejackets, and even after the queen lowered her royal standard and retired from the palace the Boston stayed on at Honolulu. Minister Stevens had recognized the provisional government with what some people would have called undue haste...

This is a fair cop - Stevens probably recognized them too quickly. But to stretch that into Stevens actively supported them, or purposefully intimidated anyone is contradicted by the evidence: "according to Thurston he [Stevens] said that the queen, by her revolutionary act, had put herself outside his protection, and that if a provisional government could show de facto control of affairs he would recognize it." - p272. If anything, Stevens simply refused to support the Queen's government - hardly reason to blame him for the revolution simply due to his inaction.

If you see other sentences you believe make your case that Daws supports the Apology Resolution, or the Blount Report, please let me know. I note on page 279:

Blount had taken his evidence at Honolulu, but he had not interviewed members of the Committee of Safety. Morgan called witnesses at Washington and accepted affidavits where he could find them. The provisional government got a very good press in the Morgan Report. No one was to blame for the revolution, said Morgan in his final statement, except the queen.

Daws is an excellent reference, but I don't think it can be fairly stated that it supports anything in the Apology Resolution. --JereKrischel 08:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo Arjuna, you're about to break 3RR on Akaka Bill. I'd like to continue our conversation regarding the quote you see as unflattering to Akaka, please continue on the talk page rather than in the edit comments. Mahalo. --JereKrischel 20:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You are also about to break 3RR. Let's take a step back on that one. I have to sign off now but more later. The boxing gloves are off for now, have a good weekend. Aloha. Arjuna 20:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As a show of good faith, let me try and find some quotes from Akaka you may find flattering. Perhaps that will balance the section to your liking. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 21:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Aloha Arjuna! I read the reference you cited in depth, and I cannot find anything particularly POV pushing in its text. I suppose my concern is that the Honolulu Advertiser editorial board, including the author of the article, has explicitly endorsed the Akaka Bill, but perhaps we can look at that article in isolation.

That being said, it looks like it might be a good standard reference for a few questions, both pro- and con-. We could turn it into a named ref, and use it in multiple places, instead of just having it at the end. Thoughts? --JereKrischel 07:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Honolulu Advertiser endorsed the Akaka Bill...Do you go to JK's page and complain about the Aloha for All and GI articles? Eekadog 05:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a legitimate sentence to the article on global warming, and I cited a legitimate source. You removed it and wrote "rv" as your comment. My entry was legitimate. It was not vandalism.

--grundle2600 May 13, 2007

I'm afraid you are mistaken. I accused you of no such thing, I merely deleted (by reversion) your not-well-thought-out addition of an inaccurate statement that "The United Nations has come out in favor of nuclear power as a way to combat global warming", which 1. mistakenly conflates the United Nations with the IPCC; 2. does not "come out in favor", but rather is a far more nuanced position on nuclear power; and 3. was material that was inappropriately placed in the article. By consensus, significant changes to the GW article are discussed on that article's talk page first. I think mention of the IPCC's position on nuclear power is certainly worth mentioning, but you had it in the wrong place. Arjuna 09:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to me. I'm sorry I got the abbreviations mixed up. You did not falsey accuse me of vandalism, and I'm sorry I said you did. My addition to the article on global warming was accurate, and I cited my source. Just because you oppose nuclear power doesn't mean that my claim was not accurate. I orginally placed my statement right after a sentence that mentioned the Kyoto Treaty. If it's OK to mention the Kyoto Treaty in that particular section, then it's OK to mention nulcear power. Just because you have a personal opposition to nuclear power does not mean that my statement was not true. --grundle2600

Aloha. I listed the reasons above -- actually it wasn't an accurate statement and it was in the wrong place. And aside from that -- and entirely irrelevant to the rationale -- I don't know why you assume that I am opposed to nuclear power. Arjuna 21:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your replyy and explanation. I do not wish to break any rules or cause trouble. If you had moved it or asked me to clarify it, instead of just outright erasing it, I wouldn't have assumed you were opposed to nuclear power. Anyway, I have since found a few other more accurate and reliable sources, and I placed them in a more appropriate place instead of the main global warming page. If you see them and think they're wrong, please let's try to fix them instead of just erasing them. I think I have a pretty tight case this time, as I got my information from the BBC and PBS. Those are very legitimate sources! Thank you for your comments and advice, and I hope I did a better job this time. Grundle2600 23:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making a report about Conn104 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. . Specifically here, the user did not vandalize since the lv3 warning. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Conn104 continued to vandalize pages after the warning, and I reported him again, for which he was blocked. Cheers, Arjuna 11:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I had given up hope of any answer. Aboutmovies 16:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Aloha, Arjuna, I responded to your comments on Talk:Hawaiian sovereignty movement. Your perspective is greatly appreciated, if you have time to comment further I'd like to address your concerns. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 05:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've replied to some of your comments on several Hawaiian Revolution pages, could you please remove the POV tags you've reinserted until you've come up with more specific citations for your assertions and concerns? Mahalo! --JereKrischel 04:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Aloha Arjuna, please see the comments at Talk:Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy#POV tag. Although I appreciate your concerns, it is not productive to throw pov tags around without either sufficient or specific cause. Please provide appropriate citations to illustrate your concerns, rather than simply making claims of your own opinion. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 09:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

JK, thanks for your amusing comments. As you are smart enough to know, but failing other ammunition than to request repeated re-interation of facts already expressed and demonstrated, there is already ample sufficient and specific cause, and that the views therein are not simply "my opinion". The POV tags will stay. Aloha, Arjuna 09:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I was not joking in my original request. Rather than edit-war with you, I thought I would kindly ask you to revert yourself, and re-post your POV tags once you were able to provide more concrete citations to bolster your assertions. So please, remove the POV tags until you've come up with more specific citations for your assertions and concerns. Making broad claims about what is and isn't mainstream, or what is and isn't tendentious, without any direct citation, doesn't seem like a viable line of debate.

Please, be specific in your citations to support your broad claims. I know you truly believe in your POV, but simply asserting that you've already proven something doesn't prove it. If you've demonstrated it with an earlier citation, simply point me to that citation. Mahalo for your kokua! --JereKrischel 09:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Aloha Arjuna, it seems I've been rubbing you the wrong way today - I am trying my best to communicate clearly to you, but I think maybe we're in one of those rough patches again.

Please, reset assured, I'm not requesting you remove the POV tag to deny any "majority" anything - I'm simply politely asking you to provide some specifics, or remove the tag until you can. I'm not prejudging your ability to find specifics, I'd just appreciate some courtesy regarding placing tags like that. I'm interested in improving the article, and the best way you can help move things forward is to be very specific, and to relentlessly cite your sources. Until you can be specific, the POV tag has no real meaning, except as a signal to others that you have unspecified personal issues with how it reads.

Insofar as informal mediation, why don't we ask Viriditas to help? Maybe a third party would be helpful in improving our communication with each other.

I will not remove the POV tag myself, but again, in the spirit of good faith, I encourage you do remove it, or to provide at least one concrete citation and example we can use to move forward. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 10:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Aloha Arjuna, I've also asked Viriditas to weigh in, and hopefully we can settle this amicably. I assure you that my request for specifics is NOT a red-herring, nor a rhetorical device, nor intended in any other way but literally. I am very much interested in specific citations you may have, and concrete examples rather than broad based ones. I know very well that we can both argue about generalities with no end, but when we get down to actual details, I think we can usually work things out. Asking for specifics is a honest-to-goodness attempt to move the discussion forward, and to avoid rhetoric.

I understand you may not have time to do a lot of work on these articles now, and I appreciate that - but even a single example that we could work on together would go a great length to mollifying my concerns, and hopefully yours as well. We can take all the time we need on this, I just want to make sure I'm doing my level best to move forward with you. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 10:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Aloha Arjuna, thank you for your specific citation - I've provided some more scholarly citations in the Talk:Overthrow_of_the_Hawaiian_monarchy page, and hope you'd take a quick look and perhaps suggest some appropriate wording for inclusion. If you don't have time, I'll try to come up with a proposal myself.

That being said, please don't consider my requests for specifics as red-herrings - I am very interested in getting to these details, and feel we can be much more productive when we discuss concrete citations. I look forward to more specifics from you, and believe that we will be able to move forward on this if we focus on these details. Mahalo, and enjoy your weekend! --JereKrischel 19:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Aloha Arjuna, I'm sorry you've taken offense at my comments to Kaihoku. I simply wanted to make clear to Kaihoku that contrary to your assertions, I was not interested in maintaining a "POV tone" as you put it, nor clinging to any particular "political ideology". I assume for now your characterizations were made in haste, and that at heart you are willing to move forward and give everyone involved in our disagreement the benefit of the doubt.

Forgive me if my comments gave offense - they were not intended to do so. I was simply expressing to Kaihoku both my dedication to improving the article to address specific concerns you have, and hoping he could help me communicate my concerns to you in a more productive manner.

Again, I hope you take me at face value when I assert that I am not trying to stonewall by asking for details - I am genuinely interested in addressing your concerns with balanced citations, and a scholarly tone. It will help us both greatly to move forward if you accept my assertion that my intent is to work with you to improve the article, as I accept that your intent is to improve the article as well. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 23:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. It may take some time to get up to speed again but I will take a look at the recent edits. Huangdi 22:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Selamat pagi, Arjuna.

I have a request to ask of you.

I've been working on the Tok Pisin (TPI) Wikipedia (http://tpi.Wikipedia.org) and Wiktionary (http://tpi.Wikipedia.org). They were both started about four years ago. Very like the Hawaiian Wikipedia, the TPI Wikipedia is mostly a shell document; you can count the number of entries in the TPI Wiktionary on the fingers of one hand.

The only sysop on the TPI Wikipedia has been inactive for over a 18 months now, and basically the Wiki has fallen into disuse. A little over a month ago I began working with both Wikis, but lacking sysop permission my hands are tied as far as making any constructive changes. My efforts to date have been updating the Karen afeas (Current Affairs) news on the front page, adding randomly selected images from Wiki Commons in the Dispela Wik (This week) secton on the front page, and testing some of my ideas for improving both Wikis.

Last week I proposed to the EN WikiProject Melanesia group that an ad hoc board of editors be formed to oversee the revitalization of the two Wikis. Seeing how the Hawaiian-language only requirement seems to have kept the Hawaiian Wikipedia's article contribution rate relatively low (re the number of uncompleted article stubs), I've suggested (and tested) bilingualty as a possibility for the TPI Wikipedia. The idea of TPI bilinguality being that translations of English-language articles will appear in the Wiki also as articles translated into Tok Pisin, and vice versa. The point of having the TPI Wikipedia bilingual is that (1) English authors will have flexibility in contributing Melanesia-related articles which will be translated (as closely as possible) into tok pisin and appear as a Tok Pisin article, and vice-versa (the "Rosetta Stone" comes to my mind), and (2) bilinguality will serve to make the Wiki bilaterally useful to locals who use tok pisin in everyday interpersonal conversation as well as being helpful to expatriates working in rural and semi-rural regions of PNG and the surrounding island provinces where tok pisin and/or related variants (e.g., Bislama, for one) are spoken.

Because you evidently have experience or at least an understanding of the social conditions on the island of New Guinea, I'd like to ask you if you would join the WikiProject Melanesia group's ad hoc group as a participant in the discussions on revitalizing the two TPI Wikis. My particular interest is to see that the TPI Wikipedia be primarily focused on Melanesia, Oceania, and the Pacific Rim countries. Discussions are now ongoing about who the target audience will be, given the fact that tok pisin more by rural people than urban people, and where rural people have less access to computers and the Internet. Your ideas on the subject, again given your experience, would be very helpful.

One of the reasons I'm asking you if you'd particiapate — or at least act as an ex officio advisor — is that I believe you could provide helpful suggestions based on your experience in both the Eastern and Western Pacific. I think your undoubted familiarity with sounds and inflections of spoken Hawaiian pidgin English will make it rather easy for you to learn the nuances of tok pisin (a simple grammar structure, with 85% of the approximately 1,500 word TPI vocabulary being English words pronounced and spelled phonetically).

I can understand that, based on the discussions above, that you might feel that you have your hands full. However, giving us a little kokua every once in a while shouldn't be too taxing, and might even give you a little break from the discussions and editing wars.

I've tested the concept of a bilingual TPI Wiktionary, and the idea seems to work well. Similar to the French Wiktionary, the definition of a tok pisin word (or phrase) in the TPI Wiktionary will have a corresponding page for the English translation of the word, but having the English word explained in tok pisin. For each of the pages there will be definitions in other regional and/or historically related languages, e.e., Solomon Ailans Pidgin, Bislama, Dutch, German, Indonesian and Japanese. While my knowledge of bahasa Indonesia has eroded with time, I can still use my dictionaries to translate tok pisin and English to Indonesian, but your fluency with with the language would be an exceptional help, even be it, given your time constraints, little more than proofing our dictionary entries.

I hope you'll join us in this effort. Terimah kasi yang, tuan.

K. Kellogg-Smith 03:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Aloha Arjuna, good to see your edits again! I disagreed with a few of them, and tried to move towards some compromise language, but I'm going to need your help in removing my bias from the tenor and tone of my suggestions. Please feel free to take a pass at some of them, and we'll see if we can get closer to the center.

Of all of them, probably the most difficult one for us to come to grips with is going to be the whole "alleged" issue. I'm not sure what the solution to that one is going to be, since we've already written forceful arguments on both sides of that issue - maybe we can simply defer it to Viriditas and let him have the final say.

Anyway, good to see you around again, work is a bear for me as well, and I only get to edit once or twice a week now :). See you around! --JereKrischel 15:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll try not to take offense at your tone in your last message to me, but let me be just a frank and un-sugar-coated in my position - putting POV tags in without being willing to be specific about things isn't appropriate. I have never taken the position that there was no dispute - my position has been that you had not usefully characterized the dispute. Saying you disagree with something, and having a constructive conversation about how to improve something are two different things. I believe you've done better at being constructive since we started out, but judging me by my external writings, however you may feel about them, is not effective at moving things forward. I stand by everything I've written outside of Wikipedia, but I respect the fact that Wikipedia is not a soap-box, and that a successful collaboration between people of dramatically differing opinion requires that we not hold other's opinions, either implied or explicitly stated elsewhere, against each other.

If you'd like to take the conversation further regarding my external writings, and what you particularly find offensive about them, I welcome you to email me directly, and I hopefully I can better explain where you are mistaken or confused, or you can better explain where I am not communicating effectively. I hope that regardless of what kind of discussion we can have about the world outside of Wikipedia, you can treat me with the same kind of assumption of good faith that I treat you. As a person who does not use an alias while editing here, you can choose to use the opportunity I give you to know about my "real life" as a sign of trust and openness, if you'd like to...and I believe that is the cornerstone of the WP:AGF policy. For all I know, you're Bumpy Kanahele...not that it would make me treat you any differently :).

Thank you for your candid thoughts, and I hope you can appreciate mine. --JereKrischel 06:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I do indeed find your writing disturbing. While I have made it abundantly clear that I strongly disagree with the views of Hawaiian sovereignty activists, your comparison of them to Nazis and their agenda to apartheid is, frankly, disgusting. You are entitled to your opinion, but so are others as well about your publicly held views. (JK's recent essays can be found here, here, here, and here. I'm afraid I am not mistaken or confused about what you write, it is quite clear and you fail to see that I simply see it as misguided in substance and vile in form.

As for POV tags, their justification has been ample from the discussion (my own and others') on the respective talk pages. Your position seems to be that because you summarily dismiss any contributions or objections from others with even a middle of the road POV, therefore there is no dispute, and therefore any POV tag is unjustified. This is a quite childish, but effective, strategy to simply wear people out.

You have crossed the line of decency as well as intelligent discourse, and while I will remain civil towards you, I'm afraid we will not be corresponding by email. You will simply have to take my word that I have no connection to any Hawaiian activist group whatsoever. Arjuna 10:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Aloha Arjuna, I'm sorry that you are somehow offended by comparing the racial separatism preached by activists to apartheid and nazism, but frankly, the shoe fits. What is disgusting is not that I speak about the connection, but that others refuse to see it as self-evident. Denying the inherent evil in special racial treatment is what is beyond decency and intelligent discourse, but as you say, you are entitled to your opinion.

I take it at face value that you have no connection to any activist group whatsoever, although frankly that makes no difference to me - I more than welcome sharing mana'o with people of differing opinions and thoughts, and I truly believe that regardless of POV, Wikipedia can be a place where people work together in good faith.

Let me reiterate that my intent is not to "wear people out", but to have concrete discussions about moving things forward. A POV tag is only justified if you can concretely justify it, not just because you have a general feeling you've expressed on the matter. We will only be able to move past our differences if we can get concrete, and that is all I ask of you. I have never made the argument that POV tags are unjustified, only that POV tags must be justified. Objections are more than welcome, but they are only really helpful if they are concrete objections, not abstract ones.

My invitation to correspond via email stands, and I hope to work constructively with you as we move ahead. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 05:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Aloha Arjuna, regarding your 11/11/2005 comment off of wikipedia, stating "Ok, look: Bush and his Neo-Con/evangelical/corporate alliance aren't Nazis. But it's also time to start recognizing what they represent: an incipient species of American fascism." Certainly you stop short of calling the U.S. government nazis - but why would you be willing to make that comparison to nazis (like I do with the race-based hawaiian sovereignty movement), but then excoriate me for doing the same?

When I look at the posts you cited regarding nazism and apartheid, here's what I find:

The Nazis did not have any collective racial claim to supremacy in Europe during WWII, the white South Africans did not have any collective racial claim to supremacy during the era of apartheid, and neither do people with the smallest fraction of ancestry traced back to pre-1778 immigrants to Hawaii have any just claim against their own peers, neighbors and cousins.

I'm certainly not calling anyone a nazi (as you don't in your comment), but simply indicating a particularly insidious racism practiced by nazis, the south african apartheid regime, and now embraced in a similar manner by race-based hawaiian sovereignty activists. Why does that offend you so much, to the point where you're no longer even willing to discuss edits or changes or improvements?

In the most basic reading of my passage, I am contesting that there is no collective racial claim that can be made, anywhere, that is just. Is my contention of that point what is particularly upsetting to you? I could have made an example of the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda, or israelis and palestinians - would those instances of collective racial supremacy have been more palatable for you?

I hope you're willing to re-read what you seem to find so offensive, and perhaps explain to me why decrying the assertion of collective racial supremacy either doesn't apply to race-based privileges claimed in Hawaii, or shouldn't be considered a negative linked with the nazi or south african apartheid regime. Mahalo, and aloha. --JereKrischel 08:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea does not originate with me but is part of the mainstream political debate: see American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America by Chris Hedges. I do find your stalking disturbing as well; perhaps you can tell me how you located that. Do I need to hire a body guard? Arjuna 08:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I located your comment by searching for your current anonymous alias on google. I believe you read "On Bush, the Dems, Jon Stewart, Hunter Thompson, Bill Moyers, and King (not Don)", and their statements didn't seem to evoke the same sort of vitriol you've gained for my writing. I'm simply curious as to why there is such an inconsistency with your reaction. As you were interested in my non-wikipedia writings, I thought it might be a good idea to learn more about any non-wikipedia writings you may have had, so I could better understand what I may have said that offended you so. I have not, and do not intend to discover who you are IRL - I respect your right and desire for anonymity, even though I do not choose to exercise such identity obfuscations myself. That being said, I believe you are a good person at heart, and I'm almost sure that most of our disagreements could be solved over a good meal together IRL. --JereKrischel 04:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You cited:

Russ, William Adam (1992). The Hawaiian Revolution (1893-94). Associated University Presses, 372. ISBN 0945636431.

The Hawaiian Revolution is 372 pages. Page 372 consists of the last of the "W"s and the "Y"s in the index. How is this a specific reference? --JereKrischel 04:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding this for the record and future ease of reference: here are the specific page numbered citations I made, but did not have time to finish before reversions started. Arjuna 20:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I've been watching some of your edits and they were good enough to inspire me back into editing, myself. It seems (if I'm wrong, just take it as a complement) like you are probably not an "activist" like me, and yet you are not afraid to fight for a balanced perspective. I really admire that a lot. I will probably be popping in & out of Wikipedia kind of sporadically, but I hope to run into you more! Mahalo nui, --Laualoha 12:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I was attempting to add a Hawaii Nation entry to Wikipedia and differentiate it from both Kingdom and Sovereignty but all of the variations got redirected to the Kingdom of Hawaii page after less than one day. Anyways, I VERY much appreciate all the work that you Arjuna and people like you have done and are doing to insure that objective and accurate information about Hawaii and the Hawaiian people even makes it into the general information pool. Please let me know what your highest priority issue is and I will do additional research and offer an additional opinion as to its validity so that you do not get strong-armed (fascisized) into complacency. -- PiPhD 22:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if you could take a look at the proposed MOS and make any changes or suggestions. As for helping mediate the current conflict with JK, I will address it later tonight. —Viriditas | Talk 04:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we need a moratorium on the reverts. I can understand your frustration. It might help if the two of you can agree to stop reverting each other and allow other editors to take a look at the edits. It's hard to follow the talk page when comments are so long and drawn out, which is why the matrix can help. —Viriditas | Talk 04:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The both of you are always welcome to use my talk page as neutral ground as you are both courteous and polite. I'm trying to setup a format at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hawaii#Current_disputes so we can look at the big picture. Feel free to follow each talk page link and create a new section entitled "Dispute" on each talk page, briefly summarizing the dispute. If you don't have time to do this, I will get to it in the next hour or so. —Viriditas | Talk 09:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious, why are you using level one headings on your talk page? —Viriditas | Talk 12:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll fix it for you if you like. And if you want, feel free to e-mail me per your comments on my talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 12:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why JK added "alleged" into the lead, but your inclusion of "as well as numerous other historical sources" should be clarified to list the most notable sources by name and added back into the article. The same holds true for "have been disputed by many historians and researchers"; you should name the most notable ones and add the content back into the article with sources. —Viriditas | Talk 12:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your loss. Please take whatever time you need to deal with your personal life. Wikipedia can wait. —Viriditas | Talk 09:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- it was extended rather than immediate family (not that that makes it any more fun) but actually sometimes it's good to have something else to do to take one's mind off, so I'll be popping in and out. A reminder to put things in perspective though. Arjuna 10:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Try to avoid attacking JK. See also: WP:NPA. I know this issue is important to you both, but you both need to pull back and take a look at the bigger picture. We need to put aside our political beliefs and improve the articles. —Viriditas | Talk 00:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you comment on my reply at Talk:Legal_status_of_Hawaii#Page_move_without_consensus and point out any errors or make some suggestions? —Viriditas | Talk 00:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your e-mail. I'm looking forward to helping you and JK resolve these issues. —Viriditas | Talk 02:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand the issue of the Blount Report versus the Morgan Report. Would both (or all) of you please send me a private e-mail at pi+at+upi+dot+cc (without the plus signs), perhaps CC:ing each other, and offer me your respective top priority information-to-be-added in regard to what specifically each of you would like to add next? If you have read my personal area or read about my concept of PiALOGUE then you may have noticed that I specialize in both disambiguation and mediation. Since you both have a strong point-of-view then this tells me that BOTH of you are missing something in your dialogue together. Perhaps one or both of you simply needs to learn to explain your point-of-view in a way that the other person CAN listen to. This may require an adjustment in languaging as every genius tends to have their own personal language which is differentiated from the understanding or awareness of the status-quo human being. Outright denial of the other person's position does not add to or further the overall dialogue (or PiALOGUE). Okay? Thanks! :o) -- PiPhD 21:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Arjuna, I really appreciate your contribution, really do. Could you please add that in Flora of Indonesia or Fauna of Indonesia that still have bad shapes? Adding all details to Indonesia article, which is already tooooo long according to WP:SIZE is not helpful. I think it is more helpful if you can improve those two articles. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 12:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Arjuna, just wanted to thank you for some of your recent, extremely good faith edits. I've been distracted a bit by work, and I greatly appreciate your attention to all these articles.

If you have the time, I'd appreciate any hints or suggestions you may have for the Nalayne Mahealani Asing article I started. As per Laualoha's suggestion, the divorce information really belongs in a biographical article, not the legality article, but I'm not sure if I've kept neutral tone. I think that Asing's legal history is important to a more complete article about her (just as divorces are mentioned in celebrity articles, for example), but there may be a need for either balance of content, or balance of tone. Your kokua on this is appreciated! Mahalo! --JereKrischel 07:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi JK. Sorry, but I'm not going to go anywhere near any articles on specific (living) individuals here in Hawaii. Good luck. Arjuna 08:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, re: Native Hawaiian, could you think about using some other phrase besides "should be approached cautiously"? I'm not trying to front for any agenda, and I'm not trying to push any usage - but the implication that "Hawaiian" in a non-racial sense is somehow "improper usage" seems like a POV push that's been made by racial sovereignty activists. Can't we just simply say there is a common usage in the State of Hawaii, a not so common usage in the State of Hawaii, and that both are perfectly legitimate? The slippery slope argument would go on to say that people should be cautious in using the term "Hawaiian" at all because of the colonialist connotations of the word, and that the proper term is "kanaka maoli" or "oiwi"...can we just leave any assertion of proper/improper out of the text at all? I just get the feeling that you're putting in the warning because you're worried some haole kid born in (or new to) Hawaii is going to call himself "Hawaiian" at some birthday luau, and get his face busted in by some moke. It almost sounds like a threat. At the very least, couldn't you assert that both usages "should be approached cautiously", since it seems to be such a contentious issue?

Anyway, please try again - I'm not happy with where you left it, but I've already given my counter-suggestion, so I'll leave it to you to offer further wording changes. Cheers/Mahalo/thanks --JereKrischel 09:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

JK, it's time to hit the hay here, but I think maybe we're at an impasse, and rather than try again, what do you say we ask Viriditas to weigh in on this? Crossposting this on your page. Cheers, Arjuna 11:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Btw, what I'm implicitly referring to is not some haole kid, who can handle him/herself and or learn the ropes. What I've seen -- more than once -- are well-meaning tourists who came here for nothing but a good time and only wanted to show interest in things Hawaii who used the term in that way, and when the person addressed visibly bristled, it made them (the tourists) feel rather lousy as though they were bad guests. So what I'm suggesting is that it's not very aloha to lead guests here to believe the terms are interchangeable here when they're not. This seems like common decency not to lead people into being unwitting or unwary participants in this contest. Now, if someone such as yourself or whomever who knows what they're doing and all the subtleties involved, that's another story, but I think the article should reflect common understanding, not serve an agenda, however justified (or not) it may be. Arjuna 11:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll check in first thing tomorrow. I'm too tired to read the discussion at this point. —Viriditas | Talk 11:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm back, but tying up some loose ends first. —Viriditas | Talk 21:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

So what's your take on JK and the indigenous issue?Eekadog 21:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Arjuna, I did the due diligence of putting more details on the talk page before just reverting - I'm more than happy to discuss any specific objections you might have to my list, to try and find some sort of compromise wording, phrasing, or citing. --JereKrischel 02:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

e kala mai, I didn't mean to say you reverted me unfairly - i put in my explanations AFTER you reverted, in answer to your request to be more specific. I'm just begging forgiveness for my edit without the comments, which I should have done before you reminded me. c/m/t --JereKrischel 02:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I put back the refs I missed - sorry, moving stuff around to match the commentary got me confused. Are there better sentences to add for those additional references? Or should they be with the Kinzer/Stevens stuff? I wasn't sure if those additional references referred to the same thing, since the Kinzer/Stevens stuff was doubled. And thanks for the Hawaiian sovereignty movement edits, good compromise, even if it is a bit klunky. c/m/t --JereKrischel 02:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Aloha! Sorry, my bad (sort of). I went into sort of a frenzy trying to keep up with Jere deleting my stuff, and I think I put in some junk links when I was trying to redo them. I will definitely have to fix some of it. He brought up the same problem, so I found the ones that he was questioning, and gave him some answers on the bottom of my talk page (not that you really need to endure one more of our discussions). If you give me specifics Iʻll get them, though one of the problems Iʻm having is that the stuff viewable online doesnʻt quite match up to whatʻs in print -- especially JTMʻs own writings. Iʻll get to fixing all the links in the article soon I hope, but I have a bit of a struggle on my hands both on Wikipedia & in life so itʻs been kind of hard to get to stuff...mahalo...--Laualoha 07:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC) ps I tried the email but havenʻt figured it out yet...

Hey Arjuna, edits look good, thanks for the refs, made one small change (involving -> both), but I don't think that's a big deal. Still digesting your email, it's a good read, and I'll reply when I have more spare cycles. m/c/t --JereKrischel 00:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Arjuna, just a few things:

1) do you have a specific quote from Kuykendall that says Morgan was "insincere"?

2) don't you think it relevant to note that some of the most incriminating testimony of blount was recanted?

3) do you have a specific page cite for tate?

I'll try and clean up the Russ ref to Pauline King, but right now it's misleading. Your further details are appreciated. m/c/t --JereKrischel 03:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't me dude, all the ip addresses in question are from some AOL account in Washington D.C. - I've been playing Company of Heroes and Metroid Prime 3 Corruption all day, and wasn't even close to awake at 7:28 am (I slept in till at least 10:30). If I wasn't ready to WP:AGF, I'd assume that someone was trying to frame me. As it stands, I doubt Laualoha has the moral or technical wherewithal (or the washington DC AOL access) to attempt such a ruse, but she was awful quick to accuse me of sock puppetry, so I wonder where she even got that idea. I wasn't even close to 3RR on the page, and I had already given detailed information on why I disagreed with her edits...I'll also note she completely reverted my change before adding anything to the talk page.

Anyway, please feel free to verify my story by checking the geobytes.com information on the ip addresses in question, and your character witness support is appreciated. I would never resort to anonymous reverting - I'm more than happy to get into conflicts, and I think you're a good witness to that. m/c/t --JereKrischel 23:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries JK, I believe you. Even before checking the IP later, I thought it didn't seem in character, so that's why I asked for evidence first (I've been busy so asked for someone else to check WHOIS). I don't suspect anyone of trying to set you up, just that they jumped the gun a little bit based on the editing tensions -- sometimes putting 2 and 2 together leads to an unwarranted conclusion of "4" when no addition was actually involved! Btw, I think we've both inadvertently gone past 3RR in our zeal from time to time. While we should obviously work to avoid edit wars entirely, in the case that we do and you (or any other editor who I know is not a total asshole/vandal) go past 3RR by accident, from now on I will at least tell you first and give you a chance to self-revert -- because I know if you do go past it's an oversight and not trying to game the system. As for the various articles, I haven't had time to look at all the changes the last few days and it's a lot to get back up to speed on. Given that the Legal Status article really needed a major re-vamp anyway, I suggested we go with L's version there to spark some needed creativity and re-thinking. I haven't forgotten about the need to get the other articles up to shape either, but work has been busy here, and for once I wanted to actually enjoy a holiday weekend and not deal with Wikipedia. Hope you had a good one too. Cheers, Arjuna 05:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was me who screwed up. Thanks for helping to sort things out, Arjuna. --Laualoha 15:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Arjuna, sorry, I was taking a break from Wikipedia. JereKrischel can wear you out! If you still require any help, let me know! I did add some Citation Needed notes to the page where I saw he was the last to edit. Some of the statements he makes need "backing up". Oh yeah, and I "borrowed" some of your user tags from your page, of stuff that applies to me too! THANKS/MAHALO!

--Kaihoku 20:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Barnstar

I award this Barnstar for helpful and often-exhausting mediation on the Legal status of Hawaii page, including fair and fearless calling-everybody-on-their-crap. Mahalo nui loa!--Laualoha 23:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Arjuna, I have made some edits to the overthrow page. Would you mind looking them over. Thanks. Eekadog 00:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey arjuna, maybe we're getting off to another tiff here, just wanted to leave a message, and maybe snip it in the bud. Some of the POV push assertions you're making don't make sense to me - what do you think is POV about putting things in chronological order around the landing of troops from the Boston?

Can you help me find some sort of compromise language, if it's tone you're worried about - I think I've done a decent job of citation and you should agree that the primary points brought up are valid. I don't mind trying to fix things to help with tone, but just blanking out my edits seems a bit rushed. Can we slow it down a tad, maybe give me some alternate language, while still including the points I'm trying to make? c/m/t --JereKrischel 05:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

JK, ok, fair enough. c/m/t, Arjuna 05:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Some specifics

On History of Hawaii, why are you removing the information about the Naniwa? And what is wrong with the Twigg-Smith cite? On some of the other details, I can imagine we may have to do some wordsmithing, but some of the stuff you're reverting doesn't seem like it would be a problem between us - or am I making an assumption there about your perspective on TS and the Naniwa? Can we at least leave that stuff alone while we work out the details on other wording?

Take for instance "group of European and American citizens and Hawaii residents formed a "Committee of Safety" on January 14, 1893 with the goal of overthrowing the monarchy and annexation of Hawaii to the United States." My version uses "European and American Hawaiian subjects" (since there were both subjects and resident aliens, which I believe "residents" cover), and says "in opposition to the Queen and her plans". The record shows that overthrow of the monarchy and annexation were decided at the mass meeting, not predetermined by the Committee...can we do some sort of melding here, and maybe say "in opposition to the Queen and her plans. The Provisional Government formed later by the Committee was dedicated to the idea of annexation to the United States.", or something like that? I get your point - the committee wanted to depose the queen, and the PG wanted annexation. But can you see mine, regarding the importance of exposing the timing of those decisions and actions?

Anyway, if this is a bad time to argue about this, we can take it up later - just wanted to try and get some clarity about exactly what your issues are. c/m/t --JereKrischel 05:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: just added a cite regarding the committee, its desire for annexation to the united states - hopefully you'll see this as a good faith compromise attempt on my part, even if we need to move it further in your direction. c/m/t --JereKrischel 05:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your recent edits to the Sanford B. Dole article. There is no justification to remove verifiable source citations. What one may consider as public fact, another may consider as just opinion. Having valid references and verifiable sources eliminates any disagreement or misunderstanding. You might want to take a look at WP:CITE. Truthanado 23:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, sorry but the statement that "After an unsuccessful attempt at armed rebellion on January 6, 1895, the Queen abdicated and swore allegiance to the Republic of Hawaii on January 24, 1895" is a fact and not an opinion. I removed the second citation because it is linkfarming. Re: the other statement for which I removed the citation: citing a secondary source is incorrect, since it attributes a conclusion to the book when it is in fact attributable to the primary source document. It should cite the Morgan Report, if anything. Arjuna 23:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This edit wasn't really "vandalism", was it? Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You are right -- my mistake so thanks. It looked like the link to the main article on the Hawaiian hotspot was taken out, but I had it backwards. Cheers, Arjuna 19:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo, Arjuna, for your Morgan Report edits - adding the additional Tate quote, and citing things is very helpful, and appreciated.

OTOH, I had to revert your Blount report edit - you changed a quote directly attributed to T-S, I believe you may have thought they were my words. If there's something else we can do to make that section more clear (maybe just quoting kuykendall directly), let's do that, but T-S was calling Kuykdendall a historian in the text.

c/m/t --JereKrischel 20:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What exactly does Viriditas mean when he says he's going to take things to the next level? Eekadog 21:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the new info and edits on the history of hawaii page. Eekadog 19:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that LarryQ's views still "accurately represent yours"? He changed them, just to let you know if you didn't already, and your endorsement is still there. Personally, I find them rather offensive. Especially when he compares the maybe-the-US'-actions-were-not-totally-legal view with "those who believe that the world is flat or that the Holcaust never happened". Never thought I'd miss Jere, but...well, I better not speak too soon, huh? I'm writing him to let him know about the debate, because I think he should and I know I'm gonna hear it from him anyway. Then I'm checking into Kane'ohe Red Roof Hospital. Why wait? Aloha, --Laualoha 00:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have not changed my views. I am only responding to L. And I am not comparing Hawaii to Holocaust denial or flat earthers. I am just explaining how ridicolous the let everything be written down and let the readers decide argument is using these examples. Why have the undue rule then? And I have not once discussed the legality of actions of the US in 1893 but instead how the actions have been viewed legally by the world since then. And I have never used fringe to describe L's views. I think they are minority and have described them as such. However, she keeping framing her discussion as though I am saying her view is fringe which is not in the question for comment.

Very interesting how she is now attempting to manipulate opinion about me. No wonder editing is so difficult in this article. Wish you hadn't invited me back?LarryQ 02:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! L, I'm sorry if you were offended, but I hope you will re-read what LarryQ wrote and see if you might have mis-interpreted what he said. I do find myself betwixt and between here. On the one hand, I could not agree more that what took place in 1893 was completely illegal, sleazy, and wrong in just about every way I can think of. On the other hand, the system of international law that now exists (well, kinda, in theory -- an ineffective U.N./ICJ system that allows itself to be run roughshod over by G.W. Bush notwithstanding) wasn't around then, so for lack of a better way to put it, it was legal to steal stuff back then. In other words, 1. the recognition of the Provisional Government by other international actors and 2. the annexation of Hawaii by the U.S. made the de facto into de jure, for all intents and purposes. There simply was not a context in which to call that into question, other than a direct military challenge to the U.S. Do I approve of that? No. What I am saying is that I recognize that like it or not it's a reality, and that the lack of past or current national or international legal contexts for addressing the very legitimate historical injustice that was done is a real problem for asserting that the United States Government's sovereignty over Hawaii lacks any legal basis. It does have a legal basis, like it or not. International recognition of U.S. sovereignty is approval that carries legal weight. Maybe it shouldn't, but it does. This is what I meant in referring to "is" versus "ought". One can make a very persuasive moral case for why this should be questioned, but a moral case is not a legal one until and unless there is a venue for doing so. Look, I'm on your side (I'm speaking to L) in terms of setting the historical record straight in the other articles, and also in presenting the case why the lack of said legal context to address those wrongs is a legitimate POV and that should be one of the main points of this "Legal Status" article. I'm trying to help, honestly. But at the same time, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or venue for espousing a political viewpoint, however justified it may be. (Note that my objection to JK's POV edits is based on that same thing, that he's trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox.) I've also always been upfront with you and everyone else that despite the fact that I see the overthrow as having been the very definition of illegal, the passage of time and all the other factors have resulted in its being a "settled issue" (for now at least). In short, it's a fait accompli. If you're still offended by this, then I'm sorry about that but I have to call it as I see it. To Larry Q, sorry that you're feeling bitten: it's obviously something that a lot of people feel very passionate about, but I understand what you are saying and I think your perspective is well-taken but obviously misinterpreted. Your contributions are valuable and I hope you don't give up in frustration. (I didn't really want to get drawn into this whole issue either, and prefer to stick to the historical articles, but I'm trying to mediate between two radically opposing views (L v. JK) because well, someone's got to.) L, what we are saying (I think -- not trying to speak for LQ) is simply that the perspective you represent should absolutely be presented, but in accordance with Wikipedia policies, i.e. within the context of the international and domestic majority view. I promise you that I will advocate that your view is represented fairly. But all of this is also why the other articles are so important in presenting the facts of what happened fairly so people can draw their own conclusions, and perhaps, create a new context into which those grievances can be heard and addressed. I hope this makes sense, and that you don't see me as an enemy (that goes for both of you but mainly L. If you think I'm being unreasonable, just wait until JK pipes in [no offense JK]). Finally, pardon the ramble, but it's been a long week and I'm tired. I'm going to crosspost this on both your talk pages. Aloha, Arjuna 05:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read and respond to my latest comments on the talk page. I'll give you time to chew it over, and I hope you'll find at least a portion of what I'm saying as valid, but I'll revert again tomorrow if you don't at least have some sort of reply on the talk page. I'm getting the feeling that you're just reflexively supporting eekadog's edits without looking at them critically - no offense intended, it's just coming across that way, even if it's not true. c/m/t --JereKrischel 06:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Arjuna, Could you have a look at what I posted at the RfC? I think it responds to your concern that we use only reliable sources on the legal issue. There is a body of work by international legal scholars on the illegality of the American occupation of Hawaii, most of it relatively recent. It is not WP:UNDUE to give voice to these sources. In fact, if we can identify which sources meet WP:RS and work form there, perhaps we will meet with better progress. These theoretical discussions that are not source-based lead us to quagmires. With respect, Tiamut 10:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Aloha all. I have basically been out the last few days with work stuff, and won't have a chance to look over the discussions and recent edits until the weekend. Cheers, Arjuna 19:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That's good news. Please see the vandalism on the Liliuokalani page, JK has really stepped out of line with some of his edits. Eekadog 20:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Arjuna what is your opinion of the verbage regarding the Akaka Bill on the page? Eekadog 18:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm growing tired of a certain editor making changes that are not listed under his edit summary. It's like the Naniwa was being used as a trojan horse to make his other edits stick. Also, now that the editor has added a definition of indigenous to the header of the native hawaiians page, do you think it is fair to remove his minority POV from the terminology section in accordance with WP:UNDUE? I've also added the POV tag to the NH page's section on the Akaka Bill. The editor was unsurprisingly miffed by the addition of the tag and asked for its rationale. Any thoughts?Eekadog 21:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Aloha Arjuna, Thanks for your recent wiki work. It's a shame that a certain editor simply reverted your and vriditas' well thought edits to put his own verbage back in. I really don't understand why that editor villifies certain white men (Spreckels and Gibson) and champions the others (Thurston, etc). Eekadog 18:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Eekadog, thanks for your help as well. I share your sentiment! I was out most of last week and so couldn't get to a lot of stuff (other changes to get to today as well but haven't had time yet) -- is your question about Naniwa etc. still a live one? Aloha, Arjuna 19:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Naniwa information doesn't really fit in well with the rest of the page. If it NEEDS to be included it should be a footnote at the bottom of the page. As for the Pitzer debate, I think the real problem that the editor has with the link is that it links to hawaii-nation.org. Perhaps you should point out the "notes" section of the Hawaiian History section to the editor.

13. Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand, by Bruce Fein

14. HAWAIIAN APARTHEID, Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.

15. a b The Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2005

Eekadog 03:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- interesting take. Hadn't considered that that may be his objection. Agree on the Naniwa thing too -- far too detailed to justify inclusion in a general article on the History of Hawaii, but if he really wants it as a footnote I've got no problem with that. Aloha, Arjuna 06:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears that 3RR has been violated on the Hawaiian History page. thoughts? Eekadog 23:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he is. He's over 3RR at the Overthrow page too. As you might know, I previously made a gentleman's offer to JK that we give the other a warning and chance to self-revert before reporting, but he has not replied with a reciprocation. (As far as I'm concerned you (and Laualoha) should be extended the same privilege but that is obviously up to him.) In any case, I have honored my word and left a message on his talk page AND sent him an email. I propose we give him until 2:30pm HST, which would be an hour, before reporting. Ordinarily I'd say a couple of hours, but I know he has been online recently so must be checking. This sound ok to you? Arjuna 23:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Arjuna, would you mind weighing in again on the native hawaiians page. I'm interested to see what your thoughts are on Jere's latest add. You can see the discussion between JK and myself on my talk page. Also, thanks for defending me on JK's page, I had been gearing up to write a response this weekend but it seems as if the latest storm has past. Eekadog 09:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree with you. I've been acquainted with him for over 9 months (Children of Men, ALF dab page, etc), and I can testify that the editor in question has not distinguished himself, either to me or others. I am glad that you feel compelled to defend the lad; it shows character. However, it's best not to misrepresent the person as someone he simply is not. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Arjuna 01:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. Please consider it, as it is one framed from personal experience. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't know you and have nothing to gain here, but I wanted to complement you and HereKrischel both on the mature way you've handled your POV disagreements. Lots of passion there on both sides but much respect as well. Very refreshing!--Lepeu1999 13:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! I was impressed at your ability to stay fairly civil in light of the passions on both sides. I wish there was more of that around here. Mahalo--Lepeu1999 12:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

JK has vandalized my talk page and removed your comment. Very laughable Eekadog 17:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Supremely annoying. Arjuna 19:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

E kala mai Arjuna, not sure what I'm doing wrong to make these mistakes - I generally click the button for diffs to see what the latest changes are, and I must be clicking on the wrong edit button, and blowing away your changes by accident. I'll try and be more careful going forward! --JereKrischel 20:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

JK, I accept your explanation, I've accidently done the same thing before, but it's Eekadog that is the aggrieved party this time. Maybe part of the solution is to slow things down a bit. Is it that important that we immediately revert? We will soon go over 3RR if so. Btw, do you have a response to my recent comment on that? c/m/t, Arjuna 20:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me if I don't believe you JK. You're not a rookie here. Eekadog 20:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I could give you my word as a Spaniard!...or should I swear on the soul of my dead grandmother? Seriously eek, even experienced wikians make mistakes. --JereKrischel 21:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo for the warning. Here's my current take on the articles:

Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy

15:24 10/2 - different from current with compromise language
22:42 10/2 - same as 15:24 (rv #1)
23:01 10/2 - same as 15:24 (rv #2)
5:11 10/3 - same as 15:24 (rv #3)
5:15 10/3 - fixed typo
12:20 10/3 - same as 5:15 (rv #1)
13:55 10/3 - compromise version

Do you see an 3RR violation there I don't? I'm trying to be very vigilant about honoring that rule, and if I've broken it, I'll certainly revert as appropriate. c/m/t --JereKrischel 23:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

History of Hawaii This is clearly a case of vandalism by eekadog, and arguably by you - simply claiming that citations are POV pushing, without being able to describe why you consider that so isn't reasonable. I see you've reverted for me on this page, I would have done so myself to avoid 3RR as per your warning.

I think at this point, either you both need to be more specific about what you find objectionable about the citations, or we need to take this into mediation. I'm happy to spend my 3 reverts every 24 hours fighting vandalism by you and eek, but I think we'd all much prefer to improve the article together.

Mahalo again for the 3RR warning, next time give me a few minutes to do the revert myself and I will :) c/m/t --JereKrischel 00:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

JK, you are babbling. I don't know what you are talking about. Reverting on this page -- what? 3RR is revering, whole or in part, the work of others. This you have clearly done, and all our reversions are legitimate reversions of your POV pushing. I regret that I have no alternative but to report you for 3RR now. Sorry. Arjuna 00:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you've seen this before...

OVERTHROW: MORGAN REPORT OP-ED DOESN’T REFLECT FACTS

Jere Krischel’s Jan. 15 op-ed, “Morgan Report is public at long last,” sounds more than a false note; it appears to be part of an orchestrated effort to suggest that Sen. Morgan’s report of 1894 about the role of the U.S. government in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy was right and Sen. Blount’s report was wrong.

Actually, the conclusions of the Morgan Report without the accompanying documentation have been widely available ever since they were submitted to the Senate.

Why does it matter now? Because Morgan maintained that the U.S. was blameless in the overthrow. His view supports the argument that the Republic of Hawai’i was a legal government and thus entitled under international law to transfer the sovereignty of the Kingdom to the United States.

Thus Krischel states: “In response to the findings of the Morgan Report, (President) Cleveland rebuffed further entreaties by the queen for intervention and recognized the Republic of Hawai’i as the legitimate successor to the kingdom.” The republic was never legitimate, however, because the majority of the population opposed it.

Nor was the Morgan Report responsible for changing Cleveland’s policy. For an accurate account of that, readers should consult Thomas J. Osborne, “Annexation Hawai’i” (Island Style Press 1998), pp 79-81. Cleveland lost the support of Congress when he tried secretly to reinstate the queen. The Morgan Report reflected a compromise within Congress: It absolved Cleveland for his effort and recommended no further action to annex Hawai’i.

Stephen T. Boggs Kane’ohe

Eekadog 07:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello! You look like someone who might be interested in joining the Biography WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you help us :-) LarryQ 23:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

For your reply and I totally respect your decision to stay removed from the debate for now, which looks at though it has dies down for the time being. Happy editing! Tiamut 16:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you either attended or is attending Johns Hopkins University. I was wondering if you have access to articles in Project MUSE, and would be willing to help me download an article. What I'm looking for in particular is this - . Let me know if you can help. Thanks. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on Talk:Hawaiian sovereignty movement/Temp‎ and help improve it. —Viriditas | Talk 02:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, an editor was kind enough to add some great photos! Hopefully I can add some more material tonight. —Viriditas | Talk 02:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you replaced Kuykendall's opinion with your own opinion. I'm not sure I feel comfortable with that. I'm new to Wikipedia but from what I've learned, editors ought to cite the opinions of others - not their own. In addition, you write that "historian Russ 'notes'". The word "notes" bestows extra weight on his arguments and give the statement a gloss of authority. Presenting the information as, "...Historian Russ argues..." is neutral and a more accurate description of what all historians do. Please consider reverting back. Mahalo --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken. The sentence is still cited to Kuykendall, therefore it is hardly an assertion of my opinion. As for the substance, it is unfortunate that you do not accept that 1. the two analyses are not mutually exclusive (it is the difference between "proximate" and "ultimate" causation; and 2. both are in fact generally accepted views among historians: one could almost certainly cite Kuykendall, Daws, Russ, and others to support either statement. If you are familiar with these historical works, you may find that these statements are not actually very controversial. Arjuna (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You replaced this:

"According to historian Ralph S. Kuykendall, "The proximate cause of the Revolution of January 17, 1893, was the attempt by Queen Liliuokalani on the previous Saturday afternoon, January 14, to promulgate a new constitution which she had prepared"[8]

With your own opinion:

"The precipitating event driving the revolution of January 17, 1893 was the attempt by Queen Liliuokalani to promulgate a new constitution which she had prepared"

You've replaced Kuykendall's words with your own interpretation of his words and removed his name; reverting a nice, clean, neutral contrast between the "arguments" of two historians. (That is, between Kuykendall and Russ)

Secondly, check your use of the word "note". Why not use the neutral word "argue"?

Last, Do you happen to have a page number for Russ? I haven't read his book(s) but I'll order it tomorrow. Mahalo--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 05:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

1. That is what is known as editing. 2. The point is that there IS no clear contrast between the two historians, as there is no controversy whatsoever that the proximate cause was the proposed new constitution, while the underlying cause was that those who planned and carried out the overthrow were motivated by a desire for annexation to the United States. These are not controversial statements, and you would certainly benefit from familiarizing yourself with the material in the future so as to avoid these pointless re-hashing of the obvious. 3. The page number for Russ is already there. Please check before asking.

Hopefully you will not fall prey to the spurious tactics of previous editors. I am very willing to work with someone who shows good faith, which I will assume you are. Mahalo. Arjuna (talk) 08:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: page number: I'm assuming that it's page 90. I saw that but didn't realize that it was the page number. Thanks for pointing that out.

Second, "pointless rehashing". I thought Wikipedia encouraged editors to work out wording on the talk pages. A discussion as this is healthy and productive.

Third: "as there is no controversy whatsoever that the proximate cause was the proposed new constitution". Then why did you feel you had to change his wording (which said that very thing)?

Fourth: you haven't responded to the questionable use of "note". I take that to mean you are in agreement with me.

Fifth:I feel more comfortable with the previous language. It was a direct quote from Kuykendall that you yourself (as stated above)feel is non-controversial. Your edit is your interpretation of Kuykendall.

Sixth: I agree that various historians may reach the same conclusions. That doesn't mean they are always interchangeable. They word their tomes differently and even small differences can carry enormous weight.

I've provided valid reasons why the previous wording was preferred. I have done this *before* editing. I am now going to change it. If, after having read this, you still feel compelled to alter it, please lay out your reasoning *before* changing the encyclopedia article (as I did). Mahalo.--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Your nitpicking over frivilous points is starting to rub me the wrong way. I strongly urge you to familiarize yourself with the material before editing as though you understand it.

Re: "note". First, this is nitpicking. Second, to re-state: that the conspirators sought annexation is NOT a controversial statement. It was their stated objective. Russ presents this information on p. 90 (which, I'm glad to hear, you were able to glean from the bibliographic format) as a list. It's not an "argument", therefore "notes" is more appropriate.

You are barking up the wrong tree by trying to make this a serious issue of historical presentation. There certainly are some in relation to these events, but these ain't them.

I would like to think that you're a serious and reasonable person with something to add, and if you show that you are I am most happy to work with you. It is most unfortunate that you have not displayed these characteristics thusfar, and I urge you to reconsider your approach. Mahalo. Arjuna (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that you have violated 3RR, and I'm afraid I will have to report you. Arjuna (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:AVOID, Specifically, section 2.1.2. The section reminds us: "These words (i.e. "note") are often used to elevate one side in a dispute by bestowing extra weight on its arguments."

In much the same way, you've bestowed extra weight on the aspect of "the underlying motivations" by: 1) Replacing the phrase "proximate cause" with "precipitating event". 2) Removing Kuykendall's name and authority as a scholar

Moreover, you still haven't answered the question as to why you changed it in the first place. In fact, you said just above that, "...there is no controversy whatsoever that the proximate cause was the proposed new constitution."

That stated, is there any more accurate way for the article to read?

I appreciate your honest efforts to improve this article. Mahalo--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your changes to the article, as the language inappropriately valorizes the perspective of the COS. You are presumably aware that the COS was the party that characterized the "threat" that existed, and saying that it was "American citizens" is a misleading representation of history. Please refrain from continued POV pushing.

As for your specific objections, the changes I made were straightforward and I fail to see any justification to your objection. I simply changed the wording from a direct Kuykendall quote to a paraphrase (ex. proximate cause to precipitating event), since it is not only K who would maintain that that was indeed the preciptating factor. Again, if you were familiar with the scholarship you would see that this is not a controversial representation of the scholarship, and your continued harping about this pointless at best. We should move onto something more substantive. Seriously. I'm cross-posting this on the Overthrow talk page, and further discussion should continue there. Aloha. Arjuna (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:AVOID.

1) Section 2.3 covers the word "despite". Using "despite" when two alternatives are contrasted is "dubious use implying preference”. You wrote "despite the fact that no apparent threat existed."

2) Section 2.2 covers the word "supposed". Using "supposed" is dubious as it casts doubt upon an assertion. You wrote, "informed about the supposed threats".

3) Section covers the word "however". Using "however" when two alternatives are contrasted is "dubious use implying preference”.

4) You inserted the word "hyperbole" to describe the reference cited. This is your opinion. It is an evaluative term serving to advance your position. see WP:NOR

Please review WP:ASF

1) You wrote, "despite the fact that no apparent threat existed." This is your opinion. You have not attributed it to anyone or to any verifiable source. In fact, you inserted into directly into a sourced, verifiable fact about an opinion which states: "At the request of many citizens, whose wives and families were helpless and in terror of an expected uprising of the mob, which would burn and destroy, a request was made and signed by all of the committee, addressed to Minister Stevens, that troops might be landed to protect houses and private property." By substituting your opinion in this way you mislead the reader into thinking that the sourced opinion matches yours, when in fact, they are opposite.

2) You wrote, "informed about the supposed threats". "Supposed" is your opinion. You have not attributed it to anyone or to any verifiable source. In fact, you inserted into directly into a sourced, verifiable fact about an opinion which states: "At the request of many citizens, whose wives and families were helpless and in terror of an expected uprising of the mob, which would burn and destroy, a request was made and signed by all of the committee, addressed to Minister Stevens, that troops might be landed to protect houses and private property." By substituting your opinion in this way you mislead the reader into thinking that the sourced opinion matches yours when in fact, they are opposite.

If you feel compelled to assert that there was no threat Wikipedia allows for you to do that by attributing that opinion to someone (a verifiable source). Otherwise it is just speculation and opinion on your part. WP:NOR states: " Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosemitesam25 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Mahalo--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you continue JereKrischel's policy of trying to game the system in order to push your POV. This attempt will not be successful. Arjuna (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Aloha Arjuna:

When you have a free moment please review WP:AVOID. It's very helpful. Mahalo --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see the talk page for the overthrow article. Please see WP:YESPOV Mahalo--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 01:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but I think it is you that needs to demonstrate that your view is NPOV. Frankly, this seems quite a Herculean task. The consensus view that I have put forth is the NPOV. Aloha. Arjuna (talk) 02:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering if you knew off hand...During the overthrow, how close were the American citizens' houses to the location in which the Marines decided to station themselves? Eekadog (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)== Yosemitesam25 ==

Is it your opinion that this is an alternate account of JK? —Viriditas | Talk 05:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It sure seems like it. It's no surprise that these antics have started up again now that the state is settling ceded land issues with OHA.Eekadog (talk) 08:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is my operating assumption, but I am not 100% certain. There are a couple of things that seem like dead giveaways (email me if you want details). Although assuming this is the case, it would seem the newfound veil of anonymity has turned a "problem editor" into someone even less constructive and less amenable to reason. In short, I'm starting to think "big problem". Arjuna (talk) 08:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What I would like for us to do, is to file an incident report at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. But let us all familiarize ourselves with the procedures on that page before putting together a report. —Viriditas | Talk 08:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm in. Arjuna (talk) 09:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What we know so far: Yosemitesam25 writes and edits in the same manner as User:JereKrischel, an editor with a declared COI on his user page. Yosemitesam25 will not answer repeated questions about his relationship to these people and groups, and persists in POV pushing on multiple articles. Is there anything else that I'm missing? —Viriditas | Talk 09:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I think that pretty much sums it up, unless you want to add something about making changes to templates that he well knows is at best nothing more than deliberate provocation, and the "V" word at worst. (I'm not suggesting we go there; the COI noticeboard explicitly excludes vandalism anyway). Is "a generally uncooperative attitude and inability to acknowledge logical argument" a criteria? Joking about the last part. I think. Arjuna (talk) 09:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: the sockpuppet issue; Interested in his position on the matter, I asked Yosemite25 if it would be ok if we requested a checkuser and he objected:

And if I request a checkuser to determine whether your edits are coming from the same account as Mr. Kirschel, you will have no objection? —Viriditas | Talk 04:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I object to a checkuser. Thanks, --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viriditas (talk • contribs) 09:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in, but I think more information would be needed before a checkuser request can be run. They strongly discourage "fishing expeditions". If there is some evidence that they're related--particularly overlapping diffs and the like--it might be a good idea to post that information at WP:SSP. I don't really see what that couldn't run at the same time as the COI notice.

Oh, and before I forget, the NPOV notice board was just started up today. This might be a prime candidate for one of the first serious cases there. --jonny-m t 12:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Arjuna: I may have inadvertantly stopped the template from showing. That was an innocent mistake. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to be able to take you at your word, but your recent pattern of behavior makes that extremely difficult. Arjuna (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies if I've offended you in any way. I read WP:FLAG, WP:SOAP, and WP:NOT#LINK before I changed the template. The changes I made seemed consistent with the policies. As I understand it, even templates are subject to WP:NPOV as well as WP:SOAP and WP:NOT#LINK. As far as I know, all of the links in the template are available elsewhere in the article. So they are unecessary and redundant. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Howzit! Please let me know specific areas that need help (that goes for everybody of course). I have real limited time these days, but I'll try my best. Mahalo to you and everyone for keeping up this awesome work! A hui hou! --Laualoha 14:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Arjuna would you like to chime in on the overthrow page?Eekadog (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been taking a Wikibreak for the last few days. Just saw that Eekadog sent an email -- thanks and will read. Laualoha, good to see you here again, and understand your constraints but welcome your input as always! Aloha, Arjuna (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 14:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Arjuna909 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I request an unblock, as I did not violate 3RR. I had only 3 reverts on the article in question in a 24 hour period: 23:29, 7 March 2008; 00:07, 8 March 2008; and 00:35, 8 March 2008. Indeed, I was the one who reported a 3RR violation by User:Yosemitesam25. UPDATE: Apparently I am blocked not for 3RR but for "edit warring". I didn't understand this previously, my apologies. However, I wish to appeal this decision also. User:Yosemitesam25 has been engaged in repeated blatant POV pushing on this and other related articles, and despite repeated discussions with him by myself and other editors on the article talk pages; these discussions have proven fruitless. His pattern of behavior has continued -- leading up to his most recent 3RR. Despite his awareness that his edits have no consensus, he repeatedly reinserts POV material, deletes consensus material, and just generally is unamenable to discussion as to why his edits are inappropriate. I can provide ample support and documentation for these assertions. Moreover, Yosemite is seen by myself and other editors as having possible WP:COI issues, and he has declined to answer questions in this regard despite repeated requests and notifications (there may also be sockpuppet issues but we do not know because of the refusal to answer questions).

Decline reason:

You're not blocked for 3RR, you're blocked for edit-warrning. Further, 3RR is not an entitlement to revert thrice a day. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 22:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have unblocked you. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 03:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! (Off and away from Wikipedia for awhile...) Arjuna (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Note to Admin: For some reason even though Scarian lifted my block, I'm still unable to edit. Apparently some sort of autoblock is still on (?), and the page on that says to enter the following text, so herewith:

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 72.234.207.226 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Blueboy 96 12:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

As i think i explained to yosemite, I'm not him, and he's not me. I left a message on his page asking him to relent, and c'mon, man, you know I wouldn't sock puppet or not attribute edits to my name. I'm on wiki break, so if you want to respond, please email. I'll be back in a few months, but if you'd like help reverting yosemite's changes, email me and I'll help you get past 3RR. c/m/t --03:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Some specifics

Some specifics

Ocean acidification

Western New Guinea

Userboxes

Native Hawaiians

Face Value

Alternate POV

Friendship of Cleveland with Liliuokalani

Blount Report

Sir David's Long-beaked Echidna

Marine mammals of New Guinea

Western New Guinea

Fauna of New Guinea - Birds

"right wing..."

Mahalo

Tarsiers

Edit war

Asmat regency

Western New Guinea

Planet Earth

Apology Resolution, Blount Report, etc.

Recent disputes

Informal mediation

Akaka edits

POV tags

Too many to mention

3RR warning

"Neutral"

You falsely accused me of vandalism

our report to AIV

Karakakooa Bay

Primary sources

POV tags

Apology to Kaihoku

POV

Would you like to help?

Welcome back

Where you stand

Page number for russ?

Aloha!

Appreciations!

WP:HIMOS

Headings

Apology Resolution

NPA

PiALOGUE

Indonesia

Aloha

Hawaiian

Kingdom of Hawaii

John Tyler Morgan References

Morgan Report

Blount Report

Sock puppet accusations

Still Need Help?

Mahalo!

The Overthrow

Reverts

Sanford B. Dole

Vandalism?

Recent Morgan Report edits

Taking it to the next level?

LarryQ Endorsement

Talk:History of Hawaii

Talk:Hawaii Articles

"Model of propriety"

Kudos

Vandalism on the Talk Page

3RR

interesting editorial

WikiProject Biography

Quick thank you

Help getting an article from MUSE?

Rewrite

Overthrow

NPOV

No Original Research

speaking of proximity

Aloha