User talk:doxTxob/Archive 2

Tennessee Imagemap

Wow is really all I can say. I wasn't expecting that to come up on there. Good job for all the hard work that went into that. If you don't mind me asking too, how did you get started on figuring out the coords? Oh and by the way thanks again for the barnstar. -- Dan9186^{(T • E • C)} February 10, 2008 19:09 (UTC)

WP:LOTD

Congratulations on your recent WP:FL promotion. You may be interested in participating the the selection of lists of the day and a list of the month for March or nominating lists for April.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Arkansas collaboration

As a part of WikiProject Arkansas, you are encouraged to vote for a project collaboration. Hope to see you there, Basketball110 20:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The article "Arkansas" has been chosen for March's project collaboration. Voting has begun for April's collaboration. Hope to see you there, Basketball110 23:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Arkansas notification

DoxTxob,

This is just a reminder to let you know what Arkansas was selected as collaboration of the month for March. As a Wikiproject Arkansas member, we suggest you try to improve and/or expand the article. Please contact ArkansasTraveler, Chetblong, or Basketball110 Thanks, - Newsletter Bot Talk 21:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC) _{The above message was delivered by Newsletterbot because your name was on this list If you would not like to recieve any more notifications, please add your name here}

Memphis Crime Section

Always discuss major changes, like removing or moving a section on the article's talk page. I had to dig through edits to discover your unreferenced move. Since both Detroit and St. Louis have crime sections on their main page, Memphis should as well. I never even saw the reference to another article and neither will the average reader. A copy of this will be placed on the article talk page. Thanks! --Scribner (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Memphis crime

Hey, I left the response on the Memphis talk page to keep the discussion in one place. If you want to respond, do it there, please doxTxob \ ^talk 20:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay doxTxob, in the future use the edit summary box and discuss major changes on the article talk page. I wasted ten minutes finding and undoing your edit. --Scribner (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I spent a few hours to restructure the Memphis article, splitting it into sub articles and transfer information from the crowded main article to the sub articles, and all that was months ago. If you go through the Memphis talk page you will find that the restructuring in general was discussed and documented. Furthermore I asked other editors for input, ideas and contributions. You could have followed the restructuring and contributed your idea then, if it is so important for you. I do not say that you are wrong, I just found your accusation, that changes were made undocumented, unfair and unfriendly (and also untrue) because you had not familiarized yourself with the changes when they were made. Instead you chose to complain months later.

You will understand that it would have been a waste of time to discuss where every little subheader should go, 99% are fine and you found one that - in your opinion - should go some place else. You must not forget that Wikipedia is also about being bold. If a majority of the changes are obvious, there is no need or requirement to discuss every change. You could have left a friendly (!) message on my talk page and I could have fixed it in 30 seconds. You see, maybe my reaction that you considered unfriendly was just a result of your not so friendly note ... Take care. doxTxob \ ^talk 19:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

For the fourth time, you removed an entire section without comment on the article talk page or the edit summary. This action and your failed response will likely come up again if your ever apply for adminship.--Scribner (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The section was not removed as you claim, it was moved to one of the sub-articles the main article was split into (Culture of Memphis, Tennessee#Crime). That makes a difference don't you think? And again, at the time the article was split, every editor had ample opportunity to follow the split and to contribute ideas, and criticism, too. This link to the history of the articles shows you that the move was well documented. The crime section was part of the People & Culture subheader in the article and the complete People & Culture subheader was moved to the Culture of Memphis, Tennesssee as documented here: [[1]]. doxTxob \ ^talk 20:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

For the fifth time the section was removed from the main article without comment on the talk summary or comment on the edit summary box. Your editing procedure was neglectful at best and your personal attackfollowing the my discovery of your edit wasn't appreciated. This is exactly the the kind of behavior that will block you from any attempt at request for adminship. Good luck to you--Scribner (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. Your comment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Memphis%2C_Tennessee&oldid=219774456 is a textbook example of a personal attack. --Scribner (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Southland Greyhound Park

Hello, Just wanted to let you know as a courtesy (since you began the stub) that I have expanded somewhat the stub on Southland Greyhound Park. Regards, --Contributingfactor (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Contributingfactor, additions are always apprecitated. Thanks a lot for contributing! doxTxob \ ^talk 17:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Free Hill, Tennessee

I am glad to see the results of the cleanup you have been doing, and I admire your bold removal of the stub template on Golddust, TN. I don't like to quarrel with someone who is doing much-needed cleanup, but I think that your effort to impose standardized headings on the Free Hill has misfired. This article is 99.44% History, and cannot be recast in the form of an article about a functioning modern community. The school that closed in 1949 is an historic site, not "Education," and the statement "At its peak, the community had approximately 300 residents" is not "Demographics." Furthermore, moving the information about peak population outside the context of the community's history has garbled the article. I was tempted to edit the article myself, but because it's past my bedtime in the Eastern Time Zone and you still seem to be working on it, for now I'm just giving you a heads up about my concern. --Orlady (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Solved. doxTxob \ ^talk 04:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that you are still nursing a grudge over the fact that I asked questions about the WikiProject Tennessee article "importance" ratings. --Orlady (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. doxTxob \ ^talk 17:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Nutbush

Thanks for your note: Orlady's guess at my opinions (placed on my talk page) accurately explains the reasons I removed it: basically, that the article made it seem as if the community were part of a city or town. Given (1) your note, and (2) Orlady's further comment, I've investigated a little and found (and properly placed) sources that back up what you've said. Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Randolph

You've developed an amazingly complete article about this community. I'm in awe! Here's the closest I could get to population data for the place: a map of Tipton County census block groups, showing ranges of population for each block group. I can't tell which census block group includes Randolph. If you can find the number for census block group (or even better, the specific census block) that contains Randolph, it should be possible to get a more accurate population count for it using the http://factfinder.census.gov website. For unincorporated communities that aren't census designated places or census county divisions, I think the census block is the smallest unit for which the Census Bureau reports population counts. --Orlady (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC) PS - I hope the census link works for you. I don't think it contains any session IDs, but I'm not sure. --Orlady (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about all the improvements in the Randolph article. It's an interesting bit of history. I did a little copy-editing in the article. In reading the article, I wondered why there was no mention of the Jackson Purchase, which I think was an important initiator of the land rush into West Tennessee. --Orlady (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the typos and errors and for your suggestion. I was unaware of the Jackson Purchase and the history around it. Very interesting facts about the area and the era of its settlement. I have included the key facts of the Jackson Purchase and the references relating to the facts in the article, splitting the Estabishment section in two sections: Settlement and Establishment. Very nice, the Indians once owned the lands, they should be credited for it as the original owners and the circumstances of the loss should be documented properly. Would you read over the shortened form of it to make sure it is historically correct to your knowledge and fix it wherever necessary? Thank you. doxTxob \ ^talk 03:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Overton

Nice work on the Overton and Travellers Rest articles -- and especially on sorting out the instances of "John Overton". --Orlady (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

My talk page

Nice edit , looks like you've been pretty busy. Nice to meet you, drop by any time. Thanks for your help on the project. User:Pedant (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope I did not disturb your talk page. I disambiguated the redirect page for Memphis, Tennessee, hundreds of links. Nice to meet you! doxTxob \ ^talk 02:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

PS - I share your philosophy: "Every small detail is important." doxTxob \ ^talk 02:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Nashville vs Nashville, Tennessee

Hi, thanks for your contribution to the page I was working on. What's the difference between using Nashville and Nashville, Tennessee? They point to the same page, and the first is shorter although it's a redirect. Curiously I am wondering why one's preferable to the other. VictorC (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi VictorC! Actually, they do not point to the same page. The link [[Nashville, Tennessee]] points directly to the article,which is properly named "Nashville, Tennessee", following the [[City, State]] naming convention. [[Nashville]] is a redirect page that points to [[Nashville, Tennessee]], which calls the article onto your screen, adding one more step to the chain of links. All Wikilinks, in general, should point directly to the article they want to link, not a redirect page, nor a disambiguation page. Redirect and disambiguation pages, in general, should be free from links that were intended for their target article instead.

For the casual editor, and - that is most important - for the casual reader of Wikipedia, it does not make a difference which is used, eventually, you get to see what you clicked on, anyway. It does make a difference, however, when you look at the statistics. One measurement of article popularity is the traffic it gets; the above mentioned links make no difference for the traffic as they all end up at the target. Another measurement of article popularity is how it is interlinked with other Wikipedia articles, and here is the point that does make a difference. If some articles link to [[Nashville, Tennessee]], others to [[Nashville, TN]] and again other to [[Nashville]], the interlink statistics get split and unsharp.

Linking to a redirect page should be considered temporary. If you create an article and use a link like that, that is fine. The link will work properly in your article and the reader will see what he or she wanted to without holding an editors creativity back by making him or her search for the exact, appropriate and final link. doxTxob \ ^talk 03:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Disam

Why thank you! Yeah everyone does that occasionally. I haven't created many articles (probably 25 in 4 years) but I know I've done it myself a few times. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 05:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Detecting redirects

Hey DoxTxob, I saw that you are working to kill redirects, and I thought you might find this useful. The first is a .js bit that adds a tab to the top of the page, which highlights redirects and performs a count of their number on a page. It is at User:Huntster/monobook.js/highlightredirects.js. The second is a simple CSS change that more subtly highlights the redirects in an article (and is on all the time, as opposed to clicking a button), which is:

a.mw-redirect {
color:green;
font-weight:bold;
}

If you are interesting and don't know how to add .js or .css stuff to your profile, let me know and I'll either step you through it or add it/them to your files, whichever you wish. Cheers! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 07:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I have scripts to do all sorts of things...from changing the page tool appearance to highlighting admins. Things are a bit easier to implement now that the Gadgets have been added to Preferences, but there are a vast variety of other scripts and CSS bits that can make life easier for editors. One quick thing for editing is AndyZ's peer review script, located at User:AndyZ/peerreviewer, which does some limited autoformatting and general cleanup for articles. It does occasionally generate a false positive in its fixes, but it is quite the handy tool (I love it because it automatically removes excess spaces from the article code).

As for Wiki-to-Commons transfers, CommonsHelper is definitely my prefered solution. It is easy to use and quite flexible, and if you sign up for TUSC access, it will even automatically upload the image to Commons for you (just be sure to go to the image and clean everything up). If you look on my user page, under Wiki Tools, you can find some additional image stuff for other purposes. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Burials in Tennessee

I didn't create that category, but I tripped across it when trying to understand the purpose of another category for burials at National Register of Historic Places properties. In the process of trying to understand why other people created these categories, I added a bunch of articles to the category. It seems to be a category for notable people buried in Tennessee. I can see why people might find it interesting, but I also think it will be difficult to maintain...

There is a separate category for Cemeteries in Tennessee and there are some by-city cemetery categories. In my opinion, family graveyards (such as the one at Shelby Farms that you describe) qualify as cemeteries, but I'm not sure it's worth including an article about a park that includes a "family plot" in a cemetery category. --Orlady (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: PDF-version of articles

Hey there. I'm not surprised...the German 'pedia typically takes a much more experimental approach to things, but this is because they tend to be very conservative/restrictive in their policies. They've been using flagged revisions for a while now, for example, but this works for them because they have somewhat stricter rules for inclusion than the English site. I don't know exactly why we're not using that particular feature (I doubt it is anything technical), but I have a feeling it is due to image licensing issues. My understanding is that the German site does not allow any non-free images, while the English site does, and this difference may cause problems in distribution. Perhaps one day the English site will start cracking down on such problems, and we can adopt the tool as well. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 05:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I guess this is a case of "ask and ye shall receive". If you've not noticed, this exact feature has now been enabled on the site...articles will have the same "PDF version" link as the German Wikipedia has. I guess this really was a case of just needing an extension enabled. Cheers! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Memphis articles would benefit from your attention

• Note for clarity: There have been no attacks to these articles and any attention that has been paid recently to them has been minimal. Anyone who would like to review these edits will see that they are all legitimate and warranted. They include Belle Meade, Cooper Young and Harbor Town. If information is found to substantiate content that might have been removed then it can be restored. It is unknown what articles are of interest to Orlady since she has thousands of edits on this site. If user Orlady is having personal issues with others on this site this is certainly not the most appropriate course of action to take (ie: using the site, its policies and others users as a platform for handling personal issues.)--24.215.173.70 (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Hi. Several Memphis articles are getting unwanted attention from users who (I believe) are trying to get at me by editing articles they think I am interested in. Articles that would benefit from sources and other attention that you might be able to provide include Belle Meade, Memphis‎, Cooper-Young, Memphis, and Harbor Town, Memphis. --Orlady (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The attention to those articles from MagdeOakewoman and various open proxies is related to my efforts to curtail activities of a banned user who is a prolific creator of sockpuppets. I have become accustomed to personal attacks from the sockpuppets.

If you don't have info to "fill in the blanks" in those Memphis articles, that's OK with me. I assume that most of the unsourced content that has been added to those articles is true, but without sourcing it cannot remain forever. I thought it possible that you would have access to useful resources for use in articles about the city -- I definitely know that I don't have such resources. --Orlady (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! Why does this happen on my talkpage? As both of you have commented here, I am entitled to an opinion on this. My opinion is: Both of you are wrong, to make it short. And both of you are right, too, to make it a little longer. What I noticed is, that the discussion about the factual controversy went back and forth in edit summaries. I would recommend to drop this habit immediately, because there are important disadvantages of it and only one advantage. If you start a fight in the edit summaries you can not correct your words and you cannot add to it later on, the length of your text is limited and - very important - other editors who might be able to contribute something to the discussion are excluded. And if the fightiung gets worse, the part that contains how it all started is hidden in 200 edit summaries in 50 different articles. The edit summary is meant to shortly summarize what was done, if you feel the urge to shortly explain why it was done, please use the talkpage, that is why every article has one attached to it. The only advantage of the edit summary method is that it saves time.

You are both right in what you did, too. Orlady had the reasonable suspicion of some vandalism going on from an anonymous IP user or a logged-in user sharing the blocked IP. The disadvantages of not logging in are outlined below. The anonymous edits in which information was removed is probably covered by Wikipedia policy. Be bold and change what you think needs changing. There is no ownership of articles. More on that later on. After having a look at User:MagdaOakewoman few edits, I personally do not see anything disruptive in the edits from this user account. The edits look well intended to me and from the nature of the edits I do not really see a userblock justified. The back and forth and the fight about who is right could have been avoided by using the talk page to address the factual issues at an early stage before it becomes personal. I have read through some of the talk related to User:MagdaOakewoman and the sockpuppet thing and I saw comments by both of you that I would find offensive, if they were addressed at me - but I am a sensitive person. Everyone (except a few well paid people in the HQ) is doing this Wikipedia stuff in their spare time and no one gets paid for it. Keep that in mind, too.

I checked the articles above real short and it does not look to me like the edits were meant to dusturb or destroy useful information. I guess whether the unsourced information should stay or go is a matter of taste here. My rule of thumb is that the more exaggerated an information sounds the better proof is required. I would agree with the deletion of the Forbes mention, if the claim is some record and there is no source, it should be deleted. The shops and bars in Cooper Young, I have seen the paragrph and left it in. There are several shops mentioned and it does not look like it is one of these additions that are made to present a company. So I would say the information about the shops sounds plausible, credible and is probably true, and if its wrong, no one gets hurt. In these cases I leave stuff in. With Harbor town I am split, according to my above reasoning I would rather keep it, but then, it is not even well written sentences. However, it is so likely that it's true that it could make sense to keep it on the long term even. Everyone here is upset about other editors and how to change Wikipedia, all that stuff. But nobody seems to care about what is most important: Those people who just look something up here. These bits and pieces that are probably true might be of use for one of the readers. It is unimportant enough information that it would not mess up anyone's homework for school, when they copy it from Wikipedia and it turns out it is wrong. Let me give an example: If it is mentioned in one article that the sky is blue in some town, somewhere and it wasn't sourced. Would you remove it?

But then, none of the deletions were against any Wikipedia policy as far as I know. Unsourced information can be removed by any editor. No question about it. I am currently taking steps to remove large portions from one article that might (or might not) infringe copyright. Natural Steps, Arkansas has large protions in it that look like they were "copy and paste" contributions from another website. But I am not too sure. In that case I decided to leave a note on the talkpage informing potential regular editors of my plans and giving them a chance to respond before I actually start to remove the stuff. Who knows? Maybe someone else really cares about it for a reason you don't know. I just mention this, because it is a current case about deletion of content. Every article seems to have "parents", editor who started the article (biological parents) or for some reason are close to the article (adoptive parents). Of course, there is no ownership of articles on Wikipedia. The articles are "emancipated" from their "parents" immediately after their creation, of course, because that is the Wikipedia policy. But it seems that there often is some attachment from the "parental" side that you might not know of. Sometimes it could be considered to leave a short note on the talkpage to let others know what you are planning. Especially if the edits are anonymous. An advantage of this strategy is that if one day you are relly bored to death, you have some pending cases on Wikipedia to take care of. Hey, but you don't have to do that, you can go ahead, be bold and do what you think is right. Wikipedia policy, in my opinion, would be behind the deletions.

Anonymous edits: If I was the King of Wikipedia, I would not allow them at all. But I am not and so I can only strongly recommend to always log in for edits and always leave an edit summary about what you have done (the why you have done it belongs on the talkpage). All IP numbers that no one (exept very few experts) knows how to interpret properly, they can bring you in contact with these vandals that you might not even know. You might share an IP address with others in the computer lab at school, one guy messes up Wikipedia and the whole classroom gets blocked. Or use the same Hotspot as some idiot at some McDonalds, wow, they can block the whole McDonalds from editing. Dang! Actions of one idiot can bomb a McDonalds out of Wikiworld for weeks! I really recommend to always log in, people who are in doubt about your integrity can look up your previous contributions and see that it is all proper. If you edit from different IP numbers, it looks suspicious and someone might connect you to bad people who vandalize Wikipedia. Only if you log in, you can make good use of your watchlist and people can reach you on your talk page if there is some controversy to talk about. There is no real reason to not log in, either. At least nothing that I have heard of yet. If you share a computer with someone you should make sure that you log out and clear your browser cache. As I mentioned, I am not a supporter of anonymous edits at all. If they were not allowed, Wikipedia would be better, and it could still be edited by everyone, they would just all have to log in!

Take care, doxTxob \ ^talk 01:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Dox. I agree with you regarding anonymous edits. But you should be assured that Wikipedia is careful not to block anonymous users who just happen to share an IP at a hotspot or in a school computer lab. The recent IP blocks related to the Jvolkblum sockpuppetry case were placed on open proxy IPs -- IPs that appear to be somewhere Malaysia or Slovakia or Mexico, but were used to edit articles about posh tennis or golf clubs in an affluent New York City suburb.

My initial reactions to MagdeOakewoman involved a case of mistaken identity. This user's edit pattern (including making small edits on numerous Tennessee articles) matched many of the dozens of Jvolkblum socks that I had seen. Strangely enough, though, it now appears that this person was upset with me over some completely unrelated actions (mostly my two edits at Percival Davis) and had decided to harass me by emulating the Jvolkblum socks. These sockpuppet users were not blocked due to the specifics of their recent edits, but because of their sockpuppetry -- the creation and use of multiple identities for purposes of evasion and harassment. --Orlady (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the novel barnstar. It should remind me of the value of lightening up on my opinionatedness, at least sometimes.

Thanks also for jumping in at Oxford Academy (Connecticut). I hope that multiple voices will help convince the contributor there of the need for following WP policies.

Finally, let me give you my continuing appreciation for your continuing commitment to telling the interesting stories of rural places -- places that are highly unlikely ever to appear on lists of the "50 most desirable suburban neighborhoods." I enjoy reading your contributions. --Orlady (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Orlady

See my comments there. I made an honest if dumb mistake is the answer to your question. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Parkin and Nodena

A little something I made, thought you might get a kick out of it since your interested in the Nodena and Parkin Sites. Towns and Temples of the Mississippian Culture-5 Sites. And thanks for the barnstar last week.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hello Herb! You were right, that is a petty amazing movie you made there. You brought the places back to live, there are even people walking around and boating. Incredible. I have only seen the Parkin site myself, it is very exciting to see how it must have looked like. Are you going to put it in the articles for the sites that are in the movie? doxTxob \ ^talk 21:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Was thinking of it, was worried others might consider it spam, wasn't sure what the policy was concerning making animations, uploading to youtube and then x-linking to them. Any thoughts? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Follow the rest of this discussion here: User talk:Heironymous Rowe#Parkin and Nodena.

Cabals on Wikipedia

Hi DoxTxob. I agree Wikipedia can sometimes be a lonely place. I do most of my work on a project where I am pretty much the only editor at present. Committed wikilawyering cowboys walk in and start messing with things – not because they have the slightest interest in the project, but just because they have the power to mess with it. These editors usually start by quoting wp:own at you, as though you have never heard of it, and as though that now gives them the right to do whatever they want with any articles. They then quote flurries of style and other guidelines, as though these support the mess they are making. And without fellow project members to chip in, there is no support. You can ask for a third opinion, but third opinions usually just offer compromises - accept this parcel of nonsense in return for an agreement to drop that parcel of nonsense.

I took this seriously at first, and stupidly thought I could combat it. But it is inevitable that this will happen if you put enough out there. I waste little energy now – once I realise another one has climbed on board, I walk away. Always a good time to widen perceptive, and stop being so precious about Wikipedia myself.

I wouldn't take this cabal stuff too seriously. Wikipedia can never do away with this behaviour, because it's entrenched in the real world. People who get their self-esteem abusing others come in either as vandals and trolls, and are soon dealt with, or the more devious ones develop high-handed wikilawyering power plays and set about becoming administrators. A certain lady we both know is an example. They usually never produce a decent article by themselves, because despite their protestations, content for them is not what Wikipedia is about. It is about the kicks they get from controlling other people.

Most administrators are fine, but there is that unsavoury underbelly, usually not open to recall. That underbelly is swollen by administrator wannabes, who flock to support their mentors. This can also be coordinated back channel, or on a specially set up chat room. That is why some think it is dangerous in Wikipedia to talk the way we are now, because it is threat to that underbelly, who then put you in their sights. If there is a cabal, I would think that's it. I suppose good administrators must be careful what they say too.

Anyway, one breath of fresh air is not to be an administrator. I'm here because I enjoy contributing content. If you are a lowly content editor, it behoves you to know your place and keep your head down, below the radar of the "cabal". But who cares! I have no intention of being "Wikipediacally correct", censoring and scutinising every sentence I write in case it is used against me later. I don't care about that nonsense and I don't need or want administrator tools.

I think Wikipedia is biased towards administrators, in the sense that it does not properly support or acknowledge content editors. It breaks my heart at times, seeing beginning editors bulldozed and wrecked by editors who prey on them, instead of being offered a helping hand until they find their feet. We must kill off useful editors in droves.

I edit Wikipedia for fun, and mostly I still find it fun. There are many great people here. Wikipedia, with all its warts, and in spite of the "cabal", if it exists, is still the best thing there has ever been for spreading information. Well, that's enough ranting for six months. Take care. --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

invitation

You're invited to sign up as a founding member, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Historic Sites ! :) doncram (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

New Rochelle discussion notice

New Rochelle problem discussion notification: I've opened a new discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Long-running problem with respect to New Rochelle area articles.

This relates to the 4 part proposal i opened on March 26, which was closed on March 27 and archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive187#Proposal for unban, apology, amnesty for Jvolkblum and related others, and topic ban for Orlady.

This is a courtesy notice to all parties who had more than a one word comment in the previous discussion. I think it is a problem that won't go away, and I hope that you will be part of the solution, whether or not you and I have agreed previously. I hope that we can at least clarify the problem, if not immediately agree upon a solution. If anyone thinks this is inappropriate canvassing, I am sure they will express that. I don't anticipate too many separated discussions on this topic, but if this one is closed and a new one opens, I'll probably notify you again, unless you ask me not to. doncram (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please trim your statement on requests for arbitration

Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee. KnightLago (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Please disregard the above for now. When I looked at your section, I saw 783 words, which is beyond the 500-word limit. However, your actual statement is only 424 words, and leeway is given for responses to other users. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)