User talk:TenOfAllTrades/archive13

This page is an archive of talk page comments for the months of February through November 2008.

Please add any new comments to my current talk page at User talk:TenOfAllTrades. Thanks!

---

Note

This editor is having a problem understanding civility. I mean literally. Even though he has been warned by a number of other editors[1], and blocked by you, he continues with uncivil remarks[2] I think he just doesn't get it. I left a warning on his page about 1 hour ago, and he followed with this[3] and this[4]. I think this editor might benefit from some assistance, perhaps from editors he trusts. The homeopathy page has been contentious at times but nonetheless and otherwise, civil. Anthon01 (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Explain please

Just what do you mean by "If you decide to take this on-wiki - which I strongly, strongly discourage you from doing - the ensuing mess is on your head." please? DuncanHill (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's on mine now. Taking full responsibility (like that means anything). Sorry Ten, Duncan and everyone who gets to deal with this now. Was fed up. One of the reasons I'd suck as an administrator, I guess. Bad temperament. Wish I could take it back. Was angry. Can't take it back now. :-( Considering a refdesk break. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Transclusions

Thank you, I managed to find some info, but you have resolved this completely for me. -- Preceding unsigned comment add to 03:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the usual?

What's the usual approach to the RFC?

They threw the whole kitchen sink by listing all those items. Because of that, each and every one has to be addressed.

To create a less confrontational approach, I shortened the RFC so that my response could be simply a few words. Is this bizarre? The intent was that I kept many things of the original RFC in an attempt to reach common ground.

A RFC is not an everyday event. Is the expected response merely a confession, even to items that I think should not be included in the RFC?

Should an RFC be an attempt to harmony and co-existance? Or should one take a position and not yield? The shortened RFC is a first attempt at compromise and harmony. Archtransit (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats not personal blog

Hi Ten, I was not aware that adding links from a single site will make you think thats a personal blog? Theoriginof is basically an information site with original content thats why I added the link here. :) I hope you will undo the delete.

Re: That's enough

You must feel like a schoolyard monitor sometimes. I'm still feeling out the dimensions of the civility thing. Tit for tat, the norm in the world outside Wikipedia, is a habit that's hard to break. I am feeling rather cranky today, to be sure, so I'll try to re-establish the lag I usually put in my "save page" procedure that allows me to not post when I realize it's better not to. I receive your remonstrance as deserved and I will factor it into my developing understanding of the Wikipedia mode of being. That said, I still think he was being argumentative, unfair, and petulant (whining), and was only posting on the talk page to grind his axe (trollishness). My evidence is the way he came back. And I don't make a distinction between anons, registereds, and admins. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You're always right, and it's starting to piss me off. Listen—the pillars of Wikipedia are theoretically sound, and it's high time humankind gave them a fair chance to work. We should bend over backwards to accomodate annoying people, because we're all annoying. Golden rule, other cheek, first stone, the full monty. I'm excited to be part of what I consider to be a monumental experiment in world communication. I'm trying to do it right, but I am by nature a mordant, sarcastic prick. I'm funny, though. A lot of your really nice people aren't funny. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Forget it. Ignore me. There's nothing important going on, and I'm not hitting on all eight cylinders right now. Let me wind up my comments on this matter by saying thanks for keeping your eye on the ball. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

BLP violation

I still think it's an egregious BLP violation, it doesn't matter where it's located, if there are no reliable sources, all of this shows up in Google. But you are right that I should have given a better edit summary, I generally do in those cases, but I just forgot in that case. Corvus cornix_talk 20:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think you can "take" any cruft from Wikia?

Sorry, but once some of that info is gone into the Wikia hosted black hole, it never again returns to the universe for commercial use by anybody else. Hawking was wrong. SBHarris 23:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My comment

If it reads like an attack to you, then that's how you read it. I read it as the only way to state my dissatisfaction with Carcharoth's 'get the fuck out' attitude, without getting blocked by him for using compliments for an editor I respected. I'd like to state support for Shankbone, but as I stated there, that's not permissible anymore. I recommend further that you please take notice, i'm not the only one chafing under Carcharoth's new policy. ThuranX (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not an attack. Carcharoth said above my post that complimenting a user makes you biased. So I can't compliment, thus, can't show support. As far as 'history', I just find his general attitude towards users who have been here a while, or do a lot of good work to be antagonistic at best, and flat out hate at worst. he's trying to get betacommand banned, and he's encouraging David to leave. Both are great contributors who do a lot to bring the project UP. I don't see you confronting Filll about his agreement with my assessment of the situation. ThuranX (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

it's right there where he says that offering praise to any one editor insults all other editors. Thus, it shows preferential treatment to one editor, aka bias. Thus, a problem. I'm really tired ofjumping through hoops for you. Carcharoth made it clear not to compliment David Shankbone, so I'm not. I'm abiding by an admin's instructions. If you want to block me for that, go ahead, I know Carcharoth will if you don't. ThuranX (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't call me "son". I'm even less likely to take you seriously when you start patronizing me, especially since I'm probably older than you. ThuranX (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Block

You seem to want to block that user, thepokeratlas. If you do, I will certainly not unblock. Go ahead, do it. I won't un-do it. I have already explained why I unblocked. You have not said why this user is different and why he should be blocked despite the generic discussion. Is it that the user is American or pro-gambling? Or you don't like any name with the word "poker" in it? Please explain. Archtransit (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that you have misunderstood me. I am not accusing you of being anti-American or anti-gambling. If you re-read the above comment, I am asking you why should User:thepokeratlas should be blocked. Based on your misunderstanding and subsequent comments, I assume that the fact that the user is possibly American or is possibly pro-gambling has no bearing and is not a reason that you think should explain his block. I also assume that unrelated facts are not important, such as the user name has 13 characters.

So what is the reason? Because it's a corporate name? If so, that issue was raised in AN. Is a corporate name sufficient reason for automatic blocking? Policy says no but some may feel it is yes. If so, policy could be changed. Concern should be then directed at policy change, not at me.

People have said that I don't get it. Therefore, please explain why User:thepokeratlas should be blocked. Answering this type of question could help resolve the situation. Thank you! Again, please do not misunderstand and think that I am accusing you of being anti-American or anti-gambling. Archtransit (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For being a voice of sanity and reason. There is a damn good reason I want my talk page semiprotected - I'm subject to vicious off-wiki harassment which has resulted in IP vandalism crap. Every time I unprotect it as a test, it starts up again. I meant what I said - if I'm forced to un-sprotect it, I'm out of here, because I don't want to deal with it.

My "e-mail this user" link has always been active, and I will post a note atop my talk page directing anon IPs to use that to contact me. (Can IPs use the e-mail link?)

I will agree to undelete my user talk page, but it's going to take some time because there are quite a few vandalous revisions that I am going to leave deleted, so I have to go through and check a squillion boxes to undelete the useful discussion.

I'm in class right now and won't be able to respond on ANI for a couple hours. FCYTravis (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

IP's cannot specify a e-mail address, as they have no preferences like logged in users, so sending them a link to e-mail you will not work. — Save_Us † 21:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Could they create an account and use the email feature immediately? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That is true I suppose, it just goes against the general notion that you don't need an account to edit Wikipedia. Anonymous editors should be able to communicate with him regardless, permanent talk page protection from IP's is against our policy.

Indefinite semi-protection may be used for:

• User pages, but not user talk pages, when requested by the user.

Policy goes on to say "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. While I sympathize with the problem of persistent IP comments making him frustrated, the reasons for protection are invalid. — Save_Us † 22:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, we do make exceptions to policy where it is in the best interests of the project as a whole. While semiprotection should not be used "solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users", I would argue that this is not what is happening here. FCYTravis has suggested that the semiprotection is to prevent editing (attacks) by a specific individual who always uses an anonymous IP. The distinction is subtle but important—his intent is to prevent a specific individual from engaging in harrassment (a legitimate aim), that anonymous and newly registered users can't edit his talk page is an unintended and unwanted side effect.

I generally support the policy on semiprotection. I agree that there are strong, sound reasons for not semiprotecting user talk pages indefinitely. I also agree with editors who note that Travis' intemperate responses to unprotection requests have not helped matters here. However, I think that if FCYTravis is able to make a compelling case then there is room for flexibility in this policy. I sincerely hope that all the participants in this discussion can keep cool heads. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh—I didn't see that this is being duplicated at AN/I. Please keep all replies there, from now on. Thanks! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (plus some thoughts)

Thanks for trying. I'm still not sure where that came from, especially the stuff about admins and overlords. I have been rather strong in my criticism of several admin and/or bot operator actions over the last week or so (JzG, East718, Betacommand, and maybe some others), and me commenting on the David Shankbone post might have been the last straw for some people (or one particular person - I'd recently been discussing things with him over at the MfD of the page about BetacommandBot, so I think that was the proximate cause). More generally, some of the AN/ANI threads may have come across as remorseless in the way they laid out a problem that others might prefer to dismiss or ignore, but I do try to be even-handed and summarise things and keep things moving forward, rather than seeing things peter out into loose ends that don't get resolved. Kind of striking a balance between discussion being suppressed and endless discussion that results in nothing being done. Getting a handle on the discussions revolving around Betacommand and his bot is impossible though - they all end up with disgruntled image uploaders finding the discussion and things go downhill from there. But as I said, thanks for the talk page follow-up support from that AN thread. Carcharoth (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Quarren Isolation League

Long ago, you presided over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quarren Isolation League. It was subsequently directed to a series of redirects. Then, just prior to the deletion of its last redirect Confederacy of Independent Systems, an anonymous user restored the whole text (including the VfD template). Not knowing what to do with it, I went ahead and nominated it for deletion again, but i there is a neater Wikipedia hammer that can be brought here, then swing away. Thanks. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was actually deleted though - just merged and a redirect placed. The anonymous user didn't recreate the material so much as he reverted. Does WP:CSD#G4 still count in that case? If so, then awesome (I don't care to wait for the AfD to play out), but the wikilawyer in me needs to be sure. :) CosmicPenguin (Talk) 14:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Badgering

I already dropped it a while ago. In any case, I violated no rules. The issue with Less's userpage was a mistake which has already been resolved. You repeating what was told to me already isn't very helpful. Malamockq (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

An hour isn't long enough to know I dropped it? I deleted your warning because I read it. It's just how I do things. Malamockq (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yelling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Modem

Please don't yell to illustrate a point. Please review the rules, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POINT 64.236.121.129 (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with Ten's comments. You appear to frequently make unjustified complaints, like this one. Friday (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please review the rules. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ten, I suggest you just reply with "Naa", it's all this comment deserves. David D. (Talk) 19:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop running around demanding civility and pestering the same people over nothing, just because they happen to be administrators. This comment on the reference desk's talk page added nothing to the topic about debates or original research. Instead it attempted to deflect the issue at hand to a comment on a contributor. If anyone is holding a grudge here, it is neither TenOfAllTrades nor Friday. Thank you. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop making assumptions and being incivil. Ten is a big boy, he doesn't need you to defend him. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE--NAHID 21:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Randy's Block

I have no intention of posting to his page. Do you consider my previous attempts to get him to criticized content and not editors poking? BTW, he pokes me on my talk page and elsewhere yet I will often respond to him by clarify the difference between crticizing content and editors. Anthon01 (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm happy you responded. According to policy, an editor has the right to place a warning for incivility on a users talk page. I haven't found a policy that says you cannot place a warning on a page if a user doesn't take it well. Your assumptions of bad faith[5][6][7] including I know that it can be entertaining to watch him explode in spectacular fashion disheartening. I left the following message on Fyslee's talk page, at 16:33, February 26, 2008, one minute before you posted your warning on my page.[8] In that message I stated It hurts me to see what this user is going through. He just doesn't get it. Maybe you can help him. I also left you a message in early February,[9] where I wrote ... I think this editor might benefit from some assistance, perhaps from editors he trusts ... I think anti-homoepathy editors need to help this editor get straight on WP:CIVIL means. Anthon01 (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you would refactor your multiple bad faith comments. Anthon01 (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I also consider I do sympathize with him that there has been a habit on the part of some of his opponents to goad him into precipitate action using civility warning templates an assumption of bad faith. Anthon01 (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I began posting warning on his page was because he would start personal attacks that would escalate into homeopathy talk page insult wars. Ever since I started warning him the talk page has been civil. That's it and nothing more. My comments to him basically boil down to, attack editors arguments, but not the editors. Anthon01 (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Also per Randy's block

The person with whom Randy was having his altercation couldn't help showing up to needle him.[10][11] (In a by-the-book civil way, of course; he knows how the game is played.) Were you serious about what you wrote in your second paragraph?[12] Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm getting fed up with the pseudoscience/paranormal crowd baiting their opposite numbers, and I'm getting fed up with my science-oriented colleagues for taking the bait so dependably. I'm trying to explain to the latter that ceding the civility bludgeon to the fringers is counterproductive and warning: WP:SPADE ahead just plain dumb, but it's a long road. I appreciate your stepping in. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You really think it just goes one way? Anthon01 (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment on my talk page

I am beginning to agree with you; Randy's not in the mood, and I'm not helping. I have no opinions regarding homeopathy except that the weight of such mentions should be appropriate and not given undue weight; on the other side, legitimate references should not be dismissed because they happen to show some favor to a homeopathic viewpoint. SA among others even used underhanded tactics to push their own POV instead of relying on a more general concensus or even editing for the enemy. I'm going to go edit kittens now. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Retracted per your recommendation. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Food for thought

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Call_for_more_bureaucrats. Friday (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page

Do you need notice or do you monitor my page after posting a comment there? Anthon01 (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse Me?

First off, if you believed that I was a newcomer, why speak to me in that tone? That is called BITING, and it is not allowed here on Wikipedia. Secondly, I have been an active user of Wikipedia since '03, and up until recently I have not felt the need to create a username. I believe that five years is enough time to familiarize myself with this website. If you could not consider that possibility, I do not honestly believe that you yourself are very acquainted with Wikipedia. I have witnessed instance upon instance of new users joining the Wikipedia community with the intention to spam. The proposal was my solution. Give me my space, and I will give you yours. Park Crawler (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Ten, would it be possible to have restored Wikipedia:Is wikidrama bad? and Model Nonprofit Corporation Act? Thanks, Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not inclined to restore Wikipedia:Is wikidrama bad?. You were trolling, and I don't really see anything good coming from giving you back an essay to support the notion that your (hopefully former) approach was beneficial. If you'd like to add a copy to a personal, off-site blog somewhere, I can undelete your essay to your userspace for a day or two.

Incidentally, you forgot to list your other two account names – User:Thespian Seagull and User:Take You There – on your user page.

Ah yes, thanks for pointing that out. Well, I wasn't trolling, but that's another matter. Feel free to restore to userspace. Thanks, Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You still forgot User:Take You There. I've undeleted to your userspace: User:Obuibo Mbstpo/Wikidrama. I'll probably delete it finally in twenty-four to forty-eight hours. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I probably will write a few more essays tangentially related to recent events, but they are not really intended as a defense of my past behavior; they are more just intended as thought-provoking articles on Wikipedia policies and philosophies in general. So, I hope you won't view them as trolling. Normally, someone might write such things under a pen name but obviously I'm not in a position to do that. Basically what I'm saying is, please disregard the source. In my opinion, it's not really important who writes something on Wikipedia; all that matters is the content (and in the case of mainspace articles, the cited sources). Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Hey, has Obuibo Mbstpo disclosed all of his sockpuppets to you? The "others before that" and "used only a time or two" comments on his user page are a tad disquieting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(I would have replied there, but his page is semi-protected) Well, isn't it kind of a WP:DEADHORSE by this point. WP:PRX was stopped, all other accounts are indefinitely blocked or have scrambled passwords, you won't be getting anymore disruption or sockpuppetry from me... you've basically won. Or depending how you look at it, we've all won. You can probably figure it out if you look hard enough anyway. I probably shouldn't even be responding but whatever. I'll just have to earn trust back I guess. All right, later. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

oops

I fumblefingeredly misinvoked my archiving bot and accidentally created Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/1900 January 2. Can you delete it for me, please? —Steve Summit (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. (And -- lookit that -- the link just above is all nice and red now.)

On the other thing -- thanks. I'm gettin closer and closer to taking that plunge. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions

Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Model Nonprofit Corporation Act

Hi. I noticed when looking at something in my logs that Model Nonprofit Corporation Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had turned blue again. Contributions of blocked/banned users created after they are banned are generally deleted - to not delete them would be to encourage block evasion. You did not leave a summary when restoring it, so it at least has my curiosity up. --B (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

IP vandal

I've been rolling back that IP vandal's reversions of your posts. Reported to ANI. Durova^Charge! 00:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed

Through extensive research, I've been able to confirm that Nigeria, helicopters and DeKalb County, Illinois really do exist. I think we're onto something!!! Friday (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of office

Things are busy at work these days, so I'm not going to be on Wikipedia much. Fear not, I'll be back.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Section31

No, I don't plan to make an account of that name but since my ip will rotate randomly (and because I have access to a whole range of ISPs), it's so people know who they are talking to. An account is a hindrance. Section 31 --87.114.141.40 (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

no I like section31 and I'll keep using it - your blocks are ineffective so please don't bother with those empty threats. --87.114.141.40 (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

feel free to rangeblock - I edit by wardriving - so it's an ineffective method of stopping me, as it makes me unstoppable. I'm not wrecking articles, I'm just using an IP to have to avoid the rather slow process of identifying and dealing with dangerous POV pushers - with an IP I can say the things that editors are not permitted to. Don't bother leaving any more messages at the fredrick day account - I've abandoned it, it served it's purposes and is no longer required (I have another account for my regular editing - it doesn't get involved in policy matters). section31 --87.112.33.78 (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

why waste your time with those blocks? --87.113.0.48 (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There are solutions to the problems that editors like User:Fredrick day present. Unfortunately, one of the people who understands them is User:Larry E. Jordan. The same solutions that would utterly bypass the deletionist/inclusionist controversy would not only remove the whole thoroughly wasteful XfD process, while at the same time making the encyclopedia more reliable, but would also vastly reduce harm from socks and vandals and spammers and POV-pushers (who are becoming increasingly professional) without sacrificing the openness that makes Wikipedia so special. It will take, however, a community willing to look at the problem and at solutions without automatically rejecting them before understanding them. If you are ever interested in exploring this, email me. I'm dropping efforts to address the community with these ideas; part of the concept is that one doesn't try to force a horse to drink water.--Abd (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there is obvious response to this user's threats. He claims to have another account, which I already thought extremely likely; while I have a suspicion, the probability remains low for it. I'm not going to pursue checkuser myself, but this is a case where a checkuser should be involved, and promptly, and not merely one responding like an automaton to an RfCU. If asked, I'd also be interested in helping to build a rapid-response network to deal with this kind of threat. Some elements, I'm sure, already exist. Others could use some of the ideas I've been working on. A side-effect would be that Jordan would have trouble creating and using new accounts, but ... I've seriously asked him not to do that, or at least not for more than a month. If I could control him, I'd just leave out the exception. I've learned to leave communities that don't want me, factoring only for participation bias.--Abd (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

Checkuser is a waste of time on people like me because it only works for people who actually use a single Isp... Section31 86.144.52.202 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This guy really thinks he is brilliant. He's not. Sure, he can drive around, he can go to a library, all that, but ... it's going to be a lot more inconvenient, plus we now know what to look for. I'll put in a little duty on this, probably, but ... I actually don't think he is now as harmful as he was. With seriously abusive socks like this, before, the harm is in when they are not identified quickly. I saw one who was around for over a year before he was IDd. He's still not blocked, but hasn't edited in a long time, so I'm not exercised about it. He made a cameo appearance at my RfA, where he provided additional evidence re his identity, though it was pretty obvious already, and then was "helpful" in identifying Absidy socks. Anyone ever wonder why an SPA, hasn't edited for months, is suddenly doing a lot of research on a blocked user? Once one knows the history, it is no mystery at all.--Abd (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning about your personal attack on my Talk page.

Your comment shown in this diff was a personal attack. Please refrain. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for semi-protecting my User Talk page

Thanks for protecting my Talk page against edits by the IP socks of User:Fredrick day. I'm not sure that this is the best response, though. His taunts there flag the IPs for me and thus I can check the contributions and revert, as well as accumulate IP evidence about his patterns. In any case, nice to be able to thank you right after having complained. I hope it evens it out some. As to continuing that semiprotection, your call, either way is okay with me, and I appreciate the intention in any case. --Abd (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Replacing magical methods

Why are you putting the magical methods back into the talk section? The whole point of removing them is because they were unsourced, original reesearch, and (most importantly) to stop edit wars when magicians come over and delete them (like what recently happened in Out of This World (card trick)). Putting them back in the talk section is just as bad in my opinion.

There is always a possibility that some of the methods are breaching copyright, and posting it in the talk section is still leaving Wikipedia open to breach of copyright. If you must state what has been removed, could you at least just put a link up to the section of the history that showed what was removed, rather than posting the secret as well? StephenBuxton (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw your reasoning, and I am still not overly convinced. However, may I suggest this notification as a compromise? It includes a link to the deleted method (which is available from the history), it is hopefully less abrupt than my original text.

If it is ok with you, would you mind changing the talk pages of those that have been done already appropriately? If you'd rather, I can do it for you? I would rather not edit your text without your approval. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My concern about having the text in the talk page is that the method is visible. Ok, it is harder for the person to find (and I do take a small amount of solace from the lack of visibility from Google), but it is still there. What specifically concerns me is (and I could be worrying about nothing) that some magician could come along and delete the text from the talk page. I personally won't do that, as I will be removing someone elses text (I will always ask first, then act accordingly). However, someone else might do that. This will end up with an edit war taking place on the talk page, ending in blocks/bad feelings/etc.

By not having the method on the talk page (just a link) is that the deletion event I described above is less likely to occur. Those editors who do want the method in the article will still be able to see what was removed, and seek out suitable and appropriate sources; the magicians who don't like seeing methods exposed will hopefully be satisfied; and people like me (Wikipedians who also happen to be magicians) will be satisfied as they have managed to skirt the fine line between helping to maintain Wikipedia's quality and their fellow magi. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced. However, whether or not the two of us can hammer out an agreement, there is no guarantee that anyone else will agree with what we think, or even realise that we have had this discussion. I have therefore opened up a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Magic#Removing_the_method_-_what_next.3F, and I would suggest that we carry on our discussion over there. Hopefully we will all be able to come to some agreement, and get it written up into the guidelines for the project. StephenBuxton (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made a start letting the other members of the Wiki magic project know about this discussion - I feel it is important that (whatever way this goes - even if it doesn't go the way I would like it) the other members of the project a) get their chance to put their thoughts, and b)make them aware of what should be done in future. I'll notify the others later (gotta get back to work). In the meantime, if you can think of any others who aren't in the project but who may make like to make a contribution to this discussion, please feel free to let them know. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing - apologies

Regarding your note - I am familiar with that policy, but I guess I was probably skating a bit too close to the mark, in which case I do apologise. My intention was only to contact those who would be interested in the outcome, not contacting everyone and their uncle, thus keeping the circulation limited.

I deliberately phrased the message I sent so that I was not saying "come and vote this way", but to state the possibilities in a non-biased manner, thus maintaining neutrality. I did my best to avoid votestacking, by ensuring that you, who holds the opposite view to me, was aware of what I was doing and had the opportunity to let others know. I have no idea as to how the other members of Project Magic would vote, so I was probably safe from votestacking anyway - I was just playing it safe. Stealth canvassing was not an issue, as I was only notifying on Wikipedia.

With that in mind, I felt my actions was safe and above board. Reading your response on my talk page, and reviewing my actions, I see now what I should have done:

1) Waited. The debate had only just started, and as you pointed out, most of the interested parties would have it on their watch list. 2) Taken into consideration that you are almost certainly a busy person, and you have more than enough to think about than one small detail.

So what should I do now? Learn from my actions by looking back over the last day or so. I believe I was right to question your actions about putting the secrets on the talk page (by that I mean that my opinion differed from yours and so I needed to know why, in case I had missed something/needed to learn something).

When I disagreed, I believe I was right to move the discussion to the talk page, and give you the opportunity to respond. My reasons for that were: 1)To get a concensus - I would go with what was decided, regardless of whether or not I agreed totally with it. 2)What the two of us come to an agreement with would mean nothing if no one else knew about it or had the opportunity to have their say.

...And at that point I should have waited to see what happened. I had made my point, you had made yours, and responses were just starting to come in. I guess I was a bit too eager.

I appreciate the time and effort you have spent in countering my arguments, and in making your point on the talk pages (mine and on Project magic). I apologise for any headaches I have caused you with my over-exuberance, and I promise that I will think twice before posting once. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

An old nemesis

I thought you might want to keep an eye on this. --LarryMac | Talk 14:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Project Magic - discussion expanded

Hi,

Just to let you know that I have waited for further comment in the discussion, but I don't see that any real concensus is being reached - we magicians can be a rather biased lot (grin). Anyway, I have posted a request at the village pump asking for people outside the project to comment.

If you have a chance to, please feel free to come back over and take part/keep an eye on (delete as applicable). If you can't, fair enough. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Further comment - no concensus has been reached, so I have raised an RFC on the matter. If you can, please come over and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic#RFC: Removal of magic methods - what next?|join in. StephenBuxton (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The RFC had been quiet for the best part of a week, but activity has started (ok - two posts: one from my Admin coach - unsolicited, I hasten to add! Plus one from me). Thought I ought to let you know, just in case you had stopped looking in due to lack of anything really happening... StephenBuxton (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking part in this RFC. It looks like there may be a concensus/compromise finally being reached, so I have summarised what I think is being agreed on. However, I would not be so bold as to say everyone is in agreement, certainly not without you having your say! If you get a minute or three, could you cast your eye over my summary, and make your comments/edits/etc? Thanks! StephenBuxton (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

knowledgeable

Your a very knowledgeable individuals how do you get so smart? College?Makey melly (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

I saw your comment about myself and User:Nakon. I trust that you found this on her talk page.

I was going to say that you were incorrect in referring you my comment as 'sexist', and certainly my second comment had no such intent, but I realize that you may be referring to my first, in which I did indeed make the implication that she might be on the side of User:Nandesuka owing to their common sex. Judging from my experience, that is not unlikely.

As for my allegation of censorship, that is factually correct as I am attempting to exercise free speech and she is preventing me - see User:The way, the truth, and the light/What I believe which she removed from AN immediately when I posted it.

I am sorry that you (and others) may have misunderstood my post at AN/I. When I wrote 'I demand an apology', I meant to express my opinion that she ought to; I did not expect an apology, nor did I desire her to be forced to give one (a forced apology is of course meaningless anyway). It was 6 months ago, true, but I never forget, and it still is relevant if she (User:Nandesuka) could block me again in rhat manner. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Your removal of an Obuibo Mbstpo file

I came across this:

(Deletion log); 15:21 . . TenOfAllTrades (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Obuibo Mbstpo/Discussions in progress" (mob recruitment tool for banned editor)

Why? Obuibo Mbstpo (not banned at the time the file was created) was, of course, very controversial. The "Discussions in progress" file may have been legitimate or not, but I'm sure it was not a "mob recruitment tool." I think people should be able to judge for themselves, and find it odd that you would, as one of your few edits or actions recently, take this step. I don't think it's an appropriate use of your admin buttons, and ask that you stop. This file should be restored, please, or please provide me with a copy with history. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Lilith

So I attempted to convince User:Lilith2396 to come around. She has in turn bitten my head off. It does not appear that either she or Edward is willing to be a constructive contributor, and it is very clear that she is a meatpuppet, if not a sockpuppet. Therefore, I am requesting that she be indefinitely blocked. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea

Hi. I thought that this was a good idea. Protects good faith OPs from having their questions removed and deters all but the extreme jokers. Thanks. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

RFC on user you were involved with

I have created an RFC on User:Lilith2396's behavior. As you were one of those who attempted to resolve the dispute, your input would be appreciated. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Incarnation of AT

Eff wone (talk · contribs).  --Lambiam 00:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives and Avril Lavigne

Please do not move pages to nonsensical titles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to learn more about moving pages, please see the guidelines on this subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives and Avril Lavigne|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Algebraist 20:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Twinkle doesn't work properly here. Sorry for the inconvenience. Algebraist 20:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

==Help! -- 71.100.8.192 ==

Hi Atlant, is it time to block this one[13] refdesk Abe Lincoln -- he's wiped out three of my posts troll warning and in reply to him. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC) What thuh...? Sorry, 10, I seem to be on the wrong page... *steps gingerly across the web, gently waving* Julia Rossi (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting the refdesk talk page just now, realised it's the right user page, wrong name. My apols 10ofAll for vaguing out like that. I did mean to be talking to you about blocking that one, but time has gone by. Cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Removal of magic methods - what next? More input please!

Hi! As someone who has taken part in the RFC in Project Magic, I thought you ought to be aware that it looks like a consensus is being reached, and it is probably now just a case of dotting the i's and crossing the t's. If you could pop over to the discussion and add your thoughts, that would be great. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As there have been no objections to the draft guidelines I created a while back, I have taken the bold action of making them the current guidelines. You can view the change here. If you disagree with the revised changes, or have any further comments on the change, please feel free to raise it on the project talk page. Thank you. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for fixing my stuff, after that lunatic swept through wikipedia like a tornado. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Here you go

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Normally I don't award barnstars for providing evidence of a disruptive editor. But your evidence on CyclePat's disruptive editing behavior was way beyond the norm. Not only did you gather evidence that is half a year ago, you summarized them precisely. For that, I award you this barnstar. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ref Desk trolls

I noticed that after just one question, User:로그인 계정 만들기 got an indefinite block. I think after just one question it is a little hard to tell if "Account created to troll Ref Desk" is a true assessment of the user's intentions. Surely some track record of trolling is necessary to enact an indefinite block and we should not be biting the newbies like this? Astronaut (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

While I was a bit surprised by this, I support your block. A little research supports your guess that this user is a troll, their username means "Create an account or login" so was likely taken from the Korean wikipedia as it obviously appears at the top of every page for anons, e.g. take a look at ko:Main Page. At the very least, it's an inappropriate username. Edit: I see you already noticed that. I've already remarked it on the user's talk page in case any admin comes along with the eye to unblock Nil Einne (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

RFA Request

Hi. In a couple of weeks time (once my computer + broadband is up and running at home), I hope to be doing my RFA. My coach, User:Balloonman believes I am ready and has already written my nomination. He has asked me if there is anyone I would like to co-nominate me. To be honest, my interaction with other administrators has been rather limited, and has only really been at AFD discussions or on the Vandal reporting pages. The only sysop that I have had a lot of interaction with is your good self. I was wondering if you would be so good as to act as co-nominator?

I know we had a disagreement about magical secrets, but an agreement was reached, and (despite a bit of over-eagerness on my part where I skirted a bit too close to breaking WP:CANVAS rules) everyone behaved properly and argued sensibly. Hopefully I have shown in that instance I do have the correct attitude for the admin buttons.

Looking at your recent contributions, I appreciate that you don't have a lot of history at RFAs, so if you don’t want to do it, then please say so – I will understand. However, if you are interested and would like to review my coaching, you can find that here. It is rather long, so take as much time as you need. If you do manage to wade through it all and decide that I am ready for the mop, please can you add your co-nom here?

If after you read it you think I am not ready, then please say so – let me know what areas you think I could do with improving. Likewise, if you decide that you don’t think I am admin material or am likely to ever be ready for the tools, then please say so. I look forward to hearing from you. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: On approaching other editors

I wasn't going to follow up your comment, but I will leave a brief comment. I believe if someone leaves a comment on another person's talkpage they deserve to get a comment back, good or bad. I left a brief apology at Tony's talkpage in case he felt my attitude was too much. However, it still goes, if he had commented back straight away, this wouldn't of happened. I think everyone has learnt something out of it. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Invite to review a set of articles

Hi there. You participated in this ANI thread. I picked out the names of some editors I recognised, or who had extensive comments there, and I was wondering if you would have time to review the articles mentioned in the thread I've started here, and in particular the concerns I've raised there about how I used the sources. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time to edit the article although you have, in my opinion, taken the eraser too far. I'll respect your guidelines and work my way back on the article with some additions that I feel are informative (not propaganda as you seem to have established) such as adding some info of the ingredients, avoiding users to have to click away for every one of them. And btw, I am a consumer of Theriaca but have my reservations about it, hence my addition of the controversy section. In my opinion I have tried to make the article as neutral as can be but it seems that we have different criteria. As I stated in the discussion page of the Theriaca article, there are many more articles out there with anecdotal and trivial information in them, which I am in favour of, since this is a place to inform. If all articles were to be reduced to stubs like you did, what would Wikipedia look like? Anyway, I appreciate constructive criticism but I'm curious as what led you to decide that an ancient poem that just happened to come to you when you decided to edit the page should have the position of the Theriaca page. POV maybe? How about the Theriaca (poem) page for it? Since it's a stub article I would find that more fitting. Sud Ram (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Medical

		Humanitarian
		I see you delivered your daily ration of humanitarian aid to the ref desk talk page re medical advice. Just a little acknowledgement :) 79.66.77.88 (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

Sir/madam, coudja consider weighing in with your experience and thoughtful opinions here: Wikipedia talk:Etiquette#A gamesmanship of inoculation? Thanks. — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Your recent addition to the guidelines

seems a bit verbose (diff). As the guidelines get longer, people are less likely to read them (particularly sub-pages of guidelines) and I think that guidelines should be to the point. It defines treatment as:

"A treatment is any type or form of medication (conventional or alternative) intended to alleviate the presented symptoms or cure the disease as diagnosed",

and I think that takes care of "natural", "herbal" and "folk" treatments. So if someone insists on providing a herbal remedy, we just point them to that sentence. I don't think that "being overly explicit drives the message home" is a good argument in this case because no one reads the sub-guidelines anyway. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

moved from User talk:Zain Ebrahim111.

You're absolutely correct. It's been a while since I read the guideline, and I completely missed that 'alternative' treatments were already in there. I've reverted myself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, Ten. And thanks for that info on garlic - I didn't know how it affected blood sugar and according to Garlic#Medicinal use and health benefits, it is 33% carbohydrates! Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheap shots?

Re this. When admins talk down to editors in disrespectful way, threaten then with blocks and then block as if they own this place, these are cheap shots. To understand better how editors who create this encyclopedia feel when this happens, I advise you to spend time writing articles and showing your commitment to this encyclopedia, like we do. If your mainspace edits average to about 50 (!) a month (with most being reverts) you may actually loose touch with the project needs as most admins who defend such actions did. Attempts to address this poor culture bring the improvement to this project and your trying to ridicule this problem and calling it "cheap shots" is unhelpful. --Irpen 15:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Respect is a two-way street, Irpen. I don't need to prove my 'commitment' to this encyclopedia. I've contributed my spare time to the project for years. I have a job in the real world; I can't make fifty edits every day. (How many edits per month do I need to make before you'd treat with me as an equal?) I have written several articles from scratch. I haven't run across a large gap that I'm qualified to fill for a while now, so I haven't been doing nearly as much article writing.

In the mainspace a lot of the work I do is custodial in nature—pruning the hedges and pulling weeds. It's no less valuable than adding gobs of fresh text. A big chunk of my time these days goes to helping the people who ask questions at the Reference Desk. That won't come up in your search of my article-space contributions, but it's fulfilling work. I'm helping people find knowledged on a one-to-one basis rather than in bulk.

I ask you to think about what you've said to, and about, Rockpocket the last few days. Right after he blocked Giano – which Rockpocket has acknowledged was a mistake – you were shouting to have him desysopped. It was 'blatant abuse'; ArbCom was too slow; he needed to be gone right that very minute. You didn't wait for further discussion or input from Rockpocket—Giano had been blocked for nineteen long minutes, and there had to be blood.

Since then, you did nothing but hammer on Rockpocket. I haven't scrutinized your contributions (feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken) but I don't recall seeing one acknowledgement from you anywhere of his history of positive contributions to the project or the fact that he is generally recognized as a reasonable, grounded, sensible, competent Wikipedia editor and administrator. Do you believe that it is likely that suggestions and advice from you – someone who has taken every opportunity over the last few days to attack him – are going to be welcomed or taken on board? Or, regardless of your intentions, is it more likely that your last edit would be read as just another kick at Rockpocket, a last opportunity to rub his nose in his error, a last chance to suggest that he's too stupid to figure out what lessons he could learn? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Banned user emails

It seems you got your answer, though it wasn't very enlightening. I'm interested in whether a user who has been banned in the extreme way that this user has can still send emails via WP, especially since it looks as if they've abused the system. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A question about baiting

Hi,

You seem to be quite knowledgeable about wikipedia. A user seems to be trying to bait me and at least one other editor over on the homeopathy talk page, and on my own talk page. I'm not quite sure how this fits in with the new sanctions imposed on homeopathy or how best to proceed. I'd appreciate your advice. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A heads up

Towards WP's treating each less notable Dunham-Soetoro-Obama family member similarly, I've reproposed merges of Maya Soetoro-Ng and Lolo Soetoro into Ann Dunham#Second marriage. See here.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 22:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And a related discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malik Abongo Obama.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 10:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey

A more modest Signature? O_o Is something wrong with mine? Anyways, The first leatters are blac kand white, colors i like. And the rest, are green and red, colors of Bangladesh, where i come from :] So, would you clarify?II MusLiM HyBRiD II II MusLiM HyBRiD II (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

SA

You've got to be kidding. SA is under civility restriction and you're condoning his behavior when he calls people butt-kissers? Are you really saying it's okay that it's directed at a group and all of wiki instead of just one person--what bunk. It's people defending him like you that serve to encourage his behavior. I would have asked him first, but he's on break and leaving those comments there is a joke. We're supposed to put up with this bull so he doesn't get upset? Get real. WQA and ANI? Ha. AE is the place for this. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

See [14]. No wonder wiki is such a mess.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you certainly showed me. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

SA's relevant restriction is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist restricted, whereby he is under special sanctions should he engage in further incivility or personal attacks. There is no point in blocking someone on break, so no admin is going to block SA for that post unless he proves it false by returning in short order. But your reinstating incivility by an editor with a long problematic history of incivility and personal attacks is definitely unwise - it will tend to encourage further such problematic behavior on SA's part. I tend personally (though others don't) to give extra latitude to an editor's departure statement - but this isn't a departure statement, just a break notice. It would be an act of wisdom if you self reverted that change. GRBerry 02:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Beta software unaccpetable?

I created a link on [Surety Bond] to SuretyBond.org, but you took it down since the software is still in beta testing. I was unaware that it would be an issue.

The site is truly useful to the industry as a whole. May I repost it after the software is officially launched? Suretyguy (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I apologize for my incivil behavior a few days ago. It was wrong of me. I hit my wikistress point--an explanation, not an excuse. I do still feel my refactor of his comments was correct though. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

Fredrick day is requesting an unblock. Sincerely. Synergy 11:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Public Domain/GFDL

Thanks for the correction on the distinction between public domain/GFDL. I'm a little disappointed I made the mistake, personally, as I researched it somewhat thoroughly when I started making images for an article. EagleFalconn (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearifaction and a Thank-You

I am formerly a "yahoo answers" answerer and decided to try out the ref-desk as it is essentially answering real human's questions and pointing them to the information that they seek. I like to help people with that, and I try to spread good karma. The only thing I dont like is when something minor gets way to much attention. I don't mind an editor erring with caution and deleting my response. As a pending physician myself, I'm glad that wikipedia is super careful about practicing medicine. Afterall, what if the tooth question was answered with "take a tylenol". There are so many deaths in America because people rely on folklore remedies, and just to give you an example of the amount of care that goes into treating patients, [read this].

Thank you for explaining to me why you deleted my answer. I think it was a courtesy, you didn't have to explicitly state the wikipedia policy you followed, and I am much more receptive to answering math/science questions because of the respect you've shown. The reason I like yahoo-answers is that its simple, but here on wikipedia, they can make a sub-talk page talking about something and the debate can last days. Sorry if I misjudged you for trying to stretch this problem out. Sentriclecub (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Useless trivia [[15]] for example, before a doctor prescribes an MAOI they have to checklist about 70 allergies and still its a leading cause of death. There have even been "cheese allergies" that only manifest themselves (and sadly its fatal) when a patient is on MAOIs.

Reference Desk

As far as I'm concerned, that question stands out like a total troll. I strongly suspect it's some 12 year old sitting somewhere giggling at getting a serious answer for some stupid question they made up in barely understandable English. I'm sorry if you don't believe that is the case, if they are serious and simply not very good at English then maybe they should direct their question to a wikipedia reference desk in a different language where they can get their point across in a more believable manner. I'm all for kooky questions at the reference desk, I just don't appreciate questions that deliberately waste people's time. Sorry my grumpiness overwhelmed my sensibilities and politeness for a moment there. TastyCakes (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection of user talk

I think you need to unprotect User talk:Abd - it's contravening this official policy. Toddst1 (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reprotecting, it's too bad he doesn't just participate, if he is sincerely critical. I.e., he can waste his time and your time with vandalism and personal attack, but not a few minutes to try to actually accomplish some change? Weird. --Abd (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

See it's like this - after you fitted me up with those bogus IP edits the last time I tried to get unblocked (how did you do that? friend in the uk? proxy?) and by that made it clear that you could keep blocked forever - I decided there was no point trying to get that account unblocked and I might as well become the troll you'd always claimed I was. And you know what? it's a lot of fun. --87.115.30.251 (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello

DougsTech (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Contacting the Times about Jackson copy

Hello, since you have been involved with this sort of things before and I'm absolutely terrified of doing it and messing up, would you be able to help me communicate with the times and try to prevent this in the future. I'm not sure if you have had time to study their piece and compare it to the earlier version of the article, but I don't think I can do it alone. — Realist² 01:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Speak of the devil....

Per [16], Keeper76 has allowed me one post to his Talk if I have questions about the issues involved in my block. I intend to use it, not waste it replying to you. As to your comments, my long answer is No. My short answer is. --Abd (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers

"Ten" instead of jack, means you are humble, and "all trades" means many diverse persuits. The reason I ask, is that it infringes on my own identity. All trades of my life which I am a jack-or-better include music. The main two things I wanted to know is if you are musical and did you complete your grad school at a "top 10" a "top 50" or "other", if that's vague enough to you?

My reason for asking is that I am assessing myself. I am 24, married 4 years, 2 infant children, zero friends (on purpose), zero activities outside of studying other than spending time with my wife and children. I study 12-16 hours every day, and besides studying and sleep, I stray off into this internet wonderland because I also use internet for learning resources. I originally had a goal to help edit wikipedia on every subject as I learned it, since this would help me, and help others who need to learn science for a medical career. I was noobie bitten, and additionally I realized that I would become so valuable to wikipedia that I would get trapped and or get sucked into wikipolitics (afterall, I hate that weight is a measure of mass (I don't allow myself to lurk that page anymore--since it will go back and forth for eternity).

Admittedly, I checked the page again and the current version is exactly as I would want it, but for awhile the page cited some policy that "if people think of weight as mass, then it should be that way". I was so distraught that wikipedia is run by admins and editors who would allow such a heresy. I don't care what goes on on the other 99% of wikipedia, but for science articles, this permanently made me lose all credibility for high-school science subset of wikipedia. I plan to come back and contribute once I'm writing articles on stuff that only a few hundred people in the world know about.

my only partipation in a deletion debate since I wanted to "bookmark" the exchange between Colonel Warden, and Michael Hardy.

Recently, I saw this point brought up again on youtube at the 8'14" mark

After I planned to work only on articles that are too beyond ordinary people, I found that these ordinary people can still come in and interfere and cause tons of inadvertent lost productivity! They don't know that they don't belong because that's the circular nature of the problem!

My only choice left is to edit articles after I've earned my md and phd and only then can I be guaranteed that I'm only dealing with other scientists, or to design a bot to do all the political stuff that I would inevitably get forced into (for example, I had to take mushrooms off the article on cholecalciferol page not by actually doing it, but by "killing it" indirectly, by wording it in such a way that someone else would delete it for me and think it was their idea! That way let them get in the edit war!

So in summary, yes I could cite more examples and comb through my words over and over and make them sound a little better each time, but time for it all to end. Hopefully you'll see why its a self-assesment.

1. When I misjudged you the first time (in short, because your solicitation of kineau was much different than sturat's solicitation of me, which only then allowed me to believe sturat's picture of you)

2. The investigation into how I misjudged you (which I traced to 3 consecutive events all of which were independently probable, and were also very improbable) allowed me to improve my online reasoning, even if by only a permille.

3. When I realized you are interested in my main two interests: physics and biology, I had to investigate two things--whether I should be envious of you, and to figure out the difference between us that allows totally contradicting beliefs about wikipedia and time allocation.

The ego thing is that I have never met anyone who has a love for maximizing their stay on earth as much as me. I am very unique, and I'm not ashamed to deny that other people like me, if they exist, cause jealousy. I chalk it up to biology, not as a weakness; denying it would be a weakness. This is why if you said that you took up piano or some other instrument, with no outside pressure, then I'd have to quiz you on about 3 more things leading up to a final differentiating factor if and only if you shared all of my thoughts up to that point. Ego sucks, blah,

4. If you persued biophysics, and I plan to persue neurophysiological biophysics, I had to figure out why one of us spends time on wikipedia, and one of us thinks it is a bad idea. Maybe I'm wrong, and I hoped you might give me an answer that I hadn't considered. Every intelligent person I meet on wikipedia, who I feel comfortable asking why if they have such valuable time, why don't those factors which inhibit me from spending hours upon hours at this place, why don't my reason apply to them also?

In a mouthful, I am sure you probably share some of my apprehensions. Do you not share them as strongly? If the weight article consistently defined it as mass throughout the article, is that okay with you and you just turn the other cheek? Or am I missing something that you see and I don't. e.g. if you owe wikipedia some tremendous favor, like going on a game show and winning a terrific monetary prize and if it weren't for wikipedia you would be much worse off.

In other words, I don't get it how smart people chose to devote time to this place, unless they admit wikipedia is progressively more addictive as your edit count grows and the community sees you as a great worker. In other words, the good natured edits that start your career also play on your good nature to help in new ways on this site, other than articles, then more people look up to you and after awhile you find yourself a beaurocrat and you neglect your wife/girlfriend and you dont spend enough time with your friends/family. If you had it all to do over again, are there not some days you wish you never got involved in wikipedia? Thanks, your answer to this last question, will basically cover it all, because the type of response I was going to give you based on your answer to the music question and top 10/50/other question, all responses blended into this overly long response. I now basically only seek to know if my thinking is correct about whether or not someone intelligent who got involved would rethink their decision from time to time. I think the answer is an obvious yes, and that if I want to be the world's best at whatever I someday professionally do, that wikipedia is a philantrap! And a very tempting one! I have already lost an hour, but if this was about one of my articles getting deleted, I'd lose weeks. Thanks, and I promise I won't follow up to anything, its just that the physics and biology in grad-school thing, shocked me to the core. Careful what you put in your user page, someday some other biophysicist will drop in and leave a post! Again, I dont know how it got this long, I tried to make it short! If you would have just said no to the music question I could have skipped all this! just kidding, even if just 60% of wikipedians were more like you, I'd have no ability to resist jumping through this huge facade and being enslaved at the other end! You and Vickers make me want to rejoin the mol bio project and rise to a top contributor. Sentriclecub (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Monty Hall talk comments

Hi - 92.41.whatever deleted this comment of yours. Just bringing this to your attention so you can restore it yourself (if you want to). -- Rick Block (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I would have restored your comment myself, but I'm trying awfully hard to AGF and to avoid furthering the appearance of ownership (which he's now accusing me of). -- Rick Block (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help, TenOfAllTrades. :-)

Cedars (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Curse you!

Look, I'm trying to do good things here. Why must you interfere with your difficult questions? I'll give you $10 right now if you just sit back, relax, and have a nice cold beverage. Friday (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Pipe to bullet change reminder

Here is your reminder to create MediaWiki:Catseparator to change the category separator from a pipe to a bullet. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate note on my talk page

Please answer my question on WP:ANI and withdraw this note [17] from my talk page. -- User:Docu

A Question

Regarding this block, did I miss something about this user? I gave two warnings and the vandalism seemed to stop. I'm not asking for an unblock or anything, but I thought it was OK and then saw that someone thought otherwise. Just asking; not a big deal. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  02:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know...

...I use a really, really nice coin, so that makes it all okay. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You are out of line

I expect to see justification on why you are raining accusation after another at me. -- Cat ^chi? 18:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I checked your userpage. You rank yourself as an "intermediate administrator" aka admin level 2. Strange. What special privilege were you given? -- Cat ^chi? 18:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Now you're just being silly, don't you think? For the record, I was bumped from 'novice' to 'intermediate' based on the judgement of Redwolf24: [18]. Effectively, it's a barnstar — I'm not expecting my opinions to carry more weight at the ArbCom just because I've got that box on my page. In other words, it's just what I told you to do to acknowledge people who successfully carry out the tasks you propose.

If you didn't want people to critique your proposal, then why did you put it on the Village Pump? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hunch

It's probably User:JeanLatore, as was User:Upperclass Wikipedian earlier today. Don't have checkuser, but it's just a hunch. As an aside, the lack of common sense sometimes on ANI is absolutely astonishing. Astonishing. Antandrus (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I assume that you’re referring to the user whose unblock I declined. I’m not familiar with JeanLatore, but Morris does smell rather fishy. Good block, imo. —Travis^talk 03:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's who I mean. I'm not absolutely certain -- maybe two chances out of three -- but look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/JeanLatore. Alison used to clean out the sock drawer regularly. He has an recognizable style. I'd say something on ANI but it's "resolved" and I don't really want to feed him. He'll have another sock in short order anyway, nominating himself for adminship, putting "hoax" tags on articles, or asking about obscure sexual practices on the Reference Desk (all typical things he does). Antandrus (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

trolls

Just saw the drama at AN/I. I only recently noticed that the DNFTT icon no longer exists, and the essay was moved to Wikimedia commons. I agree with you that trolling is a serious problem, and your recent incident shows that some active editors have no idea how to recognize a troll and do not understand DNFTT. Am I wrong, or is this something the community really has lost sight of in the past couple of years? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Pardon my talk page stalking -- I was just having the same thought last night. Like you guys I've been around for a while, and I am honestly shocked that so many people could not recognize that "user" for what he was. The risk is that we become a gigantic all-you-can-eat buffet for trolls, if we aren't already. (Personally I hate commenting on those ANI threads because it feeds them -- I'd rather just silently block and move on, as TT mentions.) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind collaborating on another essay or even policy ... the trick is to get people to see that someone may not violate any policy, yet be a troll. This makes it hard to explain how to recognize a troll, but it also shows that one of the problems is that people prefer to wikilawyer, and use policies instead of good judgment. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Meet it is I set it down, that one may smile, and smile, and be a troll. (As Francis Bacon once wrote). MastCell ^Talk 21:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ten, may I ask you to go to WP:DE which I think (1) needs some rvisions and then (2) elevation to policy, as it will address many of our concerns? i left a commetn on the talk pae, maybe you can take the enxt step. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#BLP prod

I thought you'd be interested in and might like to comment on the above. RMHED (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Media Inspection Team

So, I see you're tagging media as having been inspected by the Media Inspection Team.

I'm a bit concerned that you haven't involved any outside editors or discussed your project with any existing Wikiproject relating to media copyrights, nor brought up your project on WP:CP, WP:NFCC, or the Village Pump. I'm also troubled that you're using templates like User:White Cat/Copyrightreview which seem to imply a privileged class of users ('Inspectors') who can make final calls on the copyrights status of images and other media.

Based on the comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Media Inspection Team, it appears that at its first (very limited) introduction to the community, this project met with some serious pushback. I would strongly, strongly, urge you to cease further templating under your project's aegis until there's been time for the community to review your proposal and make (where appropriate) suggestions.

Wikipedia has a large body of experienced editors, policies, procedures, and templates all designed to respond to copyright concerns. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with those, and make use of the existing tools before engineering new ones. If there are errors or omissions in our existing practices, feel free to make suggestions in the appropriate places. Please don't try to create a new, parallel system for managing copyright problems; it's an unnecessary effort for you, and confusing for everyone else. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a large body so please do not lock me out from everything I am doing. What do you want me to do leave the project? I suggest you give me a break and stop treating me like a new user. Are you monitoring my every edit? -- Cat ^chi? 22:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As for VP, last time I used it you stated "If you didn't want people to critique your proposal, then why did you put it on the Village Pump?". This time I do not see a need for any critique or discussion. I merely desire to work on my own identifying which image(s) need attention and which ones (in my view) are ready to be moved to commons. Anybody is welcome to join the effort. -- Cat ^chi? 22:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please drop me a line if this is continueing. Refdoc (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Can commercial sites not be linked to?

You have had it out for my commercial site for some time. I recently put up a link for an online video tutorial on my industry. The link is extremely valuable to those who do not understand bonding.

Why would you take it down? Because it is hosted by a commercial site?

Did you even watch the video before taking the link down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.178.84.198 (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's nothing personal. Take a look at our policy on external links, particularly the bit about Links normally to be avoided. The first entry is

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

Your video is an introduction to surety bonds, something that our article should be able to accomplish on its own. There's no fundamental problem with information being hosted on commercial sites, though editors here do tend to judge links to commercial sites more critically. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

First off, thank you for your prompt response. I have seen the abuse of the surety bond wiki article over the years, which I reluntantly admit that you have watched over very well. However, I have to make a stand on this, as I feel this link truly is providing value.

The video provides multiple useful educational tidbits that the wiki article either has not or can not do...

1. Visual & audio learning - Suretyship is a confusing subject. So much so that those who work in the industry typically agree that it takes about 2 years to understand what you are actually doing. The video allows visitors to see what parties are involved and how they interact. A live video is the only medium where the relationships can be properly explained.

2. Topics too complicated for text

   a. indemnification
   b. how suretyship is truly a form of credit, not insurance
   c. claims process
   

I ask you to watch the video and compare it to the Wiki article. I feel doing so will convince you that there is value offered by the video that cannot be had in the article.

Thank you for your time and consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.178.84.198 (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have watched the video. While I agree that the article in its present form needs work, I don't see any important information in the video which could not be included in our article as it matures. I must disagree with your assessment that the introductory information on your site is 'too complicated' for inclusion in Wikipedia. (The video transcript is less than seven hundred words long, far smaller than many Wikipedia articles on complex topics.) If there is information that is better presented in graphical form, Wikipedia supports the inclusion of tables, images, animations, and (if necessary) video.

I am also concerned somewhat by the tone of the video, which attempts to 'sell' surety bonds as absolutely superior to alternatives (insurance, ILOCs) under all circumstances. Wikipedia would be better off with a neutral presentation of the material in our article than with a link to an external, commercial site which has a clear interest in promoting its own products.

The absolute best way for you to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of surety bond topics would be to sign up for an account, and dive in and start improving (editing, expanding) our articles. If you get stuck with an editing problem, feel free to drop by the Help Desk; there are lots of helpful folks there who can set you right. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

So you agree that there is value in the video that is NOT on the Wiki article. You then ask me to edit the article to redo what has been done on the video. Doesn't that in itself say that the link is worth keeping? The video took 2 weeks to make and I don't see what advantages would come of Wiki hosting the material that is already available.

The link will accomplish the same, but save countless hours....no one is going to spend that kind of time on a Wiki page.

True, the video states that suretyship is superior to ILOCs, but it clearly shows a compare and contrast as to why...Should the advantages of surety bonds not be mentioned? Do some reasearch, find a banker and see if they disagree. The facts are presented conservatively, in favor ILOCs I might add, as the comparison suggests only a 3% return on investments.

In addition, insurance is not an alternative to suretyship as you suggest. The 3 products available are surety bonds, ILOCs, and cash (which is similar to ILOCs).

Please consider the above and provide a rebutal to the above if you feel there is a valid one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.178.84.198 (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You have to keep in mind what our purpose is on Wikipedia. All of the information on Wikipedia is – or should be – available from other sources. Our aim is to consolidate that information in a single place, in a consistent format, and to distribute that information under a free license to make it as widely-available as possible. Relying on external links to supply information that should properly be in our articles falls short of achieving our goals for a number of reasons.

Unreliable access. Web sites go down, rendering information unavailable for indeterminate periods of time. Site administrators may move or rename pages to which we link, rendering our links useless. Companies fail and corporate priorities change, rendering linked information inaccessible. Linked pages can change without our knowledge (introducing errors or spam).

Limited distribution. Relying on external links for key information makes Wikipedia articles much less useful to readers who use downloadable or print versions of Wikipedia. (Not all of our readers have reliable, high-bandwidth internet access.) We cannot distribute linked content under our free license, the GFDL.

No opportunity to edit. Content in external links cannot be altered by Wikipedia's editors. We have no opportunity to correct any errors or to remove bias. We cannot improve the presentation, provide footnotes, or add new material.

I'm not trying to get into an argument about the merits of surety bonds versus other guarantees, nor do I want to argue about the quality of your work. I'm just saying that relying on an external site for content that should be in our articles isn't something that we're prepared to do here. It is our policy not to include such links in our articles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You first cited that it was taken down due to not having unique content. NOT because it was a commercial site on seperate servers.

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

Your video is an introduction to surety bonds, something that our article should be able to accomplish on its own. There's no fundamental problem with information being hosted on commercial sites, though editors here do tend to judge links to commercial sites more critically.

Then you agreed that there is unique content and I should put it on the wiki article.

Now that you are out of valid reasons you are stating reasons that apply to ALL Wiki external links. By that reasoning, there shouldn't be any external links and Wiki should be a complete source on all subjects.

Clearly, the Wiki page is lacking and you are grasping at straws as to why the link should not be there. I would think that this would be enough to convince you that the link is valuable.

I am not looking to argue, but it is hard to see why the link is problematic when your reasoning constantly changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.178.84.198 (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where you're having trouble with the language of our external links policy. Your link contains no significant content that wouldn't exist in a comprehensive Wikipedia article, and should not be included. (Your link contains nothing more than an introduction to the topic — something that any standalone encyclopedia article ought to incorporate.) I've spent an inordinate amount of time trying to explain to you why that policy exists, and how its strictures are important to Wikipedia's mission.

I don't doubt that you've done a fair bit of work, but frankly your link isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Perhaps you will be able to find a more suitable venue elsewhere on the web. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame that your ignorance on suretyship is leading you to take away a valuable resource from Wiki visitors. I will be putting the link back up. Feel free to take it down, but I will be happy to put it back up just as often. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.178.84.198 (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Now listen!

Philistines like you are responsible for this! Keep your efficiency to the Science desk, will you, we're on neutral territory here at the Miscellaneous! ---Sluzzelin talk 01:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate Image:Apollo 11 mission patch.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Apollo 11 mission patch.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Apollo 11 mission patch.jpg is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Apollo 11 mission patch.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

troll warning

I think the discussion that we both participated discusses a problem that is probably unsolvable. I've seen a lot of less than desirable behavior on the part of established users. It's expected in new users but not really excusable for established users.

Happy editing. Chergles (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

Thanks for the notice, I am clarifying what happened in the section. :) — neuro^(talk) 21:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarified. Any more questions, don't hesitate to drop me a line. — neuro^(talk) 22:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries -- thanks for the impartial view, the values that appear to motivate you are very familiar to me…but I must admit I occasionally lose sight when too close to an issue. I think we're on the right track now, thanks to your feedback. -Pete (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Huggle uses diffs, it just doesn't use the whole screen, so without scrolling down it is hard to see what is going on. You can probably see how obvious it looked in Huggle. Also, thanks for the notice, I didn't know that it broke in Opera too, I will hopefully fix my talk page tomorrow. — neuro^(talk) 23:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Cedarlane

Why you keep taking out FACTS is beyond me. John Course is my Uncle and he is still doing the Janitorial duties. Cindy Greer is his ex wofe and still heads up the entire operation.......

WHY dude? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.141.141 (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Our policy on biographies requires all statements made about living people to be footnoted to reliable sources. While I don't doubt your honesty, Wikipedia has no way to verify that your additions to the article are accurate. (For all anyone knows, John Course could be the CFO and these edits are part of a practical joke.)

Incidentally, if you sign up for an account, it will be easier for you to communicate with other editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

BLOW ME —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.145.246 (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)