User talk:Tznkai/Archive 2

Leaving Community

I will no longer be participating in the Wikipedia community. I may change my mind, but probably not for a while. I will likley continue to edit articles, either signed in or not, depending on what I feel like, but I will no longer be interacting in the community at large, including policy discussions, votes for deltion, requests for adminship and the like.

The reason I have done this is because I feel like the community is ends oriented, with to many of its members unconcerned with the means.

This is related to the incident with User:Ed Poor, but it is not what he did, but how the community reacted to it.

I have never entertained the idea that poor conduct is justifyiable by seniority, a good laugh, or by the ends. The means never justify the end.

I could argue this, and hold my ground valiantly in the community.

Or, I can do what makes me happy, and not entertain something I feel deep at the core of my being is wrong.

So long, and thanks for all the fish.--Tznkai 22:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: User:Kim Bruning talked some sense into me, so I've decided to instead take a week long vacation from the community. I will still be editing articles, but I will not be participating in community activities. I'll see how I like it. The invalidations of my votes holds.--Tznkai 22:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tznkai" Not sure how that got lost, probably got eaten during a database SNAFU--Tznkai 08:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Off vacation. --Tznkai 15:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

42

I am sorry to see you leaving the community. You have been a good editor and contributor to wikipedia and I hope that you will continue contributing to wikipedia and in time will feel comfortable returning to participating in things like VFD and RFA. If you decide to return remember to watch your step as there will be exploded sperm whales and pots of petunias scattered around. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:16, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Contributions

If you feel the community is too much to deal with, you should try focusing on researching/creating quality featured articles. This lets time pass and unless you choose a controversial topic, you'll have little interaction with the community until the time comes for FAC, but the people there are pretty reasonable. </ramble> -- BRIAN0918  23:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Take it easy! :-)

Kim Bruning 12:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

revert on God

Are you sure you wanted to add back all those rofls? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your support on my RfA, even though you retracted it due to another user's very poor actions. It really does mean a lot to me to get that kind of trust. A wikibreak is always a good idea. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 19:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

What?

I'm fairly new, so I haven't been following wiki-politics... what happened? Lepidoptera 23:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Jtkiefer's RFA

Thanks for your support on my RFA, I really appreciated it and again I hope that you will eventually come back to participating in things such as RFA. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 05:11, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

ID/Silverback's content

Since you've historically objected to Silverback's content in the article, upon seeing his latest reinsertion of it, I rolled it back (along with some additional 'example creep' added by some passersby). Silverback promptly reverted my reversion. Since I'm not inclined to participate in yet another revert war on this article, I've reverted the bits of example creep but let Silverback's content stand anticipating your return to the article. If you still object to the content, you have my endorsement, if for no other reason than it's rather long and the article is on a diet. FeloniousMonk 12:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like your decision is based more on allegience to a cabal than an independent assessment of my contribution. Why not edit in good faith instead?--Silverback 21:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor

Hi.

You may wish to take a look at my recent post to Ed's page, which I made before I happened across your departure note. You may find that I share some of your concerns. I suspect that many others do to, but I am among the few who is willing to speak up. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Theistic Evolution

Thanks for the note, Tznkai. I'm glad to see you're sticking around and would enjoy tag teaming on some non-controversial articles. ID-related articles have a twisted attraction to me... I'm like a moth attracted to the dazzle of a fire. I flicker around, dive in and out, and often get singed in the process. But I can't help it.

As for thesitic evolution... When it comes right down to it, I'm not quite sure what my answer is to a question of "How did all these diverse species come about?" ID (if successful) tells us that there was a designer(s), but it cannot tell us who or how. I am a Christian, but (like St. Jerome and CS Lewis) I think the creation story that starts Genesis is written in a poetic manner, not a scientific one. I do believe in a creator, but there are many way He could have done it. Here are my opinions on each.

6-Day creation. My fiancee holds this position, and I can see its appeal: God doesn't waste any time getting to the humans. Surely a God that can pull off creation in 6 days is a powerful and wonderful God... and if He could do it in 6 days, why would He choose to take billions of years? However, physicists triangulate stars to be more than 10 billion light years away. Meaning that the universe must at least be 10 billion years old. So long as the physicists are accurate (and I see no reason to doubt their calculations), believing in a 6-Day creation also means believing in a deceiving or trickster God. That's not for me. So even though I agree with Melita, that God could create it all in six days (I believe in His omnipotence), it just doesn't seem like He did.

Theistic evolution. Many of my friends take this position, and I can also see its appeal. God wound up all the universe at the beginning such that it would play itself out into human beings after several billions of years. Using Kenneth Miller's analogy, sure it's a great pool player that knocks a ball in with every shot, but it's an even greater player who can knock them all in with one shot. A great and brilliant God, in this vein, would set it up such that in the initial creation act (the Big Bang) it would all be taken care of. He never needs to intervene. He never needs to "cheat", so to speak, and break natural laws. He's like a genius chess player who can solve all the problems with one move, and doesn't need to *poof* any new pieces onto the board.

However, here again, I don't see the scientific evidence. The "theistic" in theistic evolution is meaningless in terms of the science, since it limits God's action to only the beginning. (Some theistic evolutionists also believe that God created the first cell, but either way they accept the evolutionary process as being wholly unaided by God.) So when it comes to things like the human eye and the bacterial flagellum, a theistic evolutionist is no different from an atheistic evolutionist. They both think that it came out of a series of mutations with no outside help. But as it stands, I am currently convinced that irreducible complexity nullifies natural selection... leaving IC components only able to be formed by pure randomness. (You can see my reasoning on the IC talk page, section "Justification".)

So I guess I would have to be considered an old-Earth creationist. The evidence (to me) points to a God who basically put together a miracle for the creation of each "type"* of living organism. The fossil record points to this. (If you think about it, the fossil record for old-earth creationism would look identical to the fossil record for puncuated equilibrium.) Irreducible complexity points to this. But old-Earth creationism really has no imaginative appeal. In comparison to 6-Day, the Old-Earth God is a lazy bum dinking around for millions of years between creating each species... taking His sweet time before making humans, the "crown of His creation." And in comparison to theistic evolution, the old-Earth God is a cheater. He wasn't smart enough to pull it off in one move, so He has to meddle all the time. The only thing one can say about the old-Earth God is that He is mysterious. But I don't pick my beliefs based on how they appeal to my imagination.

And to make things more complicated, the evidence for universal descent seems pretty convincing. (And I think Behe says he believes in universal descent, too.) Thus, we now have species-creating miracles that somehow come out of other existing species. Eagles hatching out of chicken eggs. David Bergan 06:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

*I had previously said "species", but I know that some species have been observed to evolve out of others... many species have lots of things in common and going from one to the next doesn't involve leaps over IC components. But at some point in the tree of life (especially at the kingdom/phylum level, and usually at the class/family level) these leaps have to be made. Vertebraes from invertebreas. Four-chambered hearts from three-chambered hearts. Multiple-celled organisms from single-celled organisms. Warm-blooded from cold-blooded. Sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction. Hollow bones from solid bones. I don't think that natural selection is wrong, but I do think it has a limit. And these sorts of leaps are on the other side of that limit. David Bergan 15:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

---

God interacts with us in such a subtle and amazing way its impossible to know if it is God or Random Chance. This is exactly how my friend Ethan says it, one of the friends I mentioned above as believing theistic evolution. Ethan hesitates to say that God performs miracles, but loves to wax eloquently on God's providence and how he comes to belief through faith. To him, nature doesn't show us any deductive arguments that God exists, but it gives us lots of hints. He's a grad student in organic chemistry and feels that there is so much going on with DNA and the cell that it leads him to believe that God planned it from the beginning (ie. the Big Bang).

My belief in God comes through reason instead of faith and feelings. And I'm not talking about ID here. If the theory of evolution were a fact - the fossil record showed us all the transitions, all of biology turned out to be reducible, etc. - I would still believe in God. My belief in God is fully on philosophical grounds... which you can see at User:Dbergan/ImagoDei. It's a page I wrote out for a weekly worldview discussion group I attend. In fact, I'll toss up the major work I wrote for that group, too. User:Dbergan/SummaBergania Those will probably answer most of your questions about my beliefs... and you'll notice that ID/evolution is absent from my creed. It's interesting to me, but not something that would affect my core beliefs.

And no, I don't have a bunny sticker. Yet. David Bergan 18:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

YAY! You're back!

Hurrah! Kim Bruning 15:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Re:

I have replied to your comment on my talk page. Cheers,

¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

and again. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Apology

I don't recall the incident. But apology accepted. Generally, I expect people to bump into each other once in a while when working in close quarters, and I don't begrudge an occaisional stepping on toes since I know I'll probably step on some toes once in a while myself. Peace. FuelWagon 16:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Abortion and User:LucaviX

Let's see here...

A recent study by Dr. Caroline Moreau --This is the name of the person who conducted the study, please do not remove-- suggested

Should the name be removed? I agree we should give studies equal treatment and such; but if this scientist does have a bias then she should be noted, nes pas? Or is the long list of scientists involved in the study sufficient to remove her... dunno. How bout?

A recent study by Dr. Caroline Moreau et al. suggested

And what's up with this?

--Temp link, please wait for discussion and collaboration to take its course to find it this will be remove, or become a footnote. -- -- Multiple sources exist, and were listed, but were removed--

Do you know what he is talking about, did anyone else do something? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you show me the policy? I wasn't aware of that till now. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm, you're probably right but its ambiguous to me if that includes comments, coolcat to the rescue though. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. Vandalism embedded in comments is still vandalism. Personal discussion in comments is still personal discussion--Tznkai 01:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Nomination

Are you aware of this? [1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:31, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Jihad

Regarding you suggestion about me as an intermediary, frankly, I think that it would just make things more complicated right now. In my opinion, the last responses on the talkpage also seems to indicate, that some progress might very well be made now. Things seems to have calmed down a bit, and Zeno ask for some more specific criticism that he can respond to/make changes according to. He also agree that the lead section should indeed be rewritten, to make it more readable and clarify some issues. Maybe you could do that, and post your suggestion on the discussionpage, so that we can discuss it? If we all remain calm, I am almost sure we can make some progress now, without any special arrangements. -- Karl Meier 07:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Admin

Hi, I've seen you around mostly Jihad and Template:Islam and... well, when I saw your RfA I began to look into you more... I, of course, agree with you in not being too fond of Zeno's conduct at times and... well. Whem I see adins like dab or SlimVirgin reprimand someone it makes sense to me (the de facto power you talked about on RfA) but, you (pardon me) can seem a little argumentative at times... which isn't necessarily bad... but it's just a little disconcerting in a user as new as you. You also said you've been in conflict with Ed Poor (whose an admin but I've seen arguments of people with him before)... Felonious and Sam Spade... (I don't know about but both have been up for admin) and Zeno (I can personally understand that)... Maybe your tone is becuase you are that good and authoratative but... it does scare me a little. I'm going to see how Zora, dab, Mel and SlimVirgin vote... and their reasons (if they do vote)... because, most times I am in agreement with them... but... well, I'm very on the line with this... because I like you... and yet, some things worry me. I'm not sure why I wrote this... but, I figured it'd be a good idea to tell you my ideas in full since I work on articles with you. If you keep up the good work I see then I'd surely vote for you later... but, I think this request is a little early. gren グレン 10:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

3RR Noticeboard Revert

Hi, I've made a 3RR noticeboard report [2], and noticed that you've reverted it three minutes later [3]. Your comment was 'RV: template got eaten.' For future reference, can you explain to me what mistake that I've made in my 3RR report, so that I do not repeat my mistake in the future? --Bletch 14:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you please explain [4] perhaps on your request for admin page where I have asked the question. It's all very well a template being allegedly eaten, but you doidn't fix it, and you let Cognition get off scott free. Now you claim you want to be an administrator. Can you not see how unready you are if you cannot even use the admin 3RR page without disaster. It was even poinmted out to you by Bletch. Why did you not fix it or get someone else to? SqueakBox 01:02, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I have restored it now 2 days on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Cognition , and he has been blocked. Can't see what the problem was, SqueakBox 03:01, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

In future either try to repair your mistake or ask someone else to. I think you did the right thing to withdraw your nomination, as this to me was evidence that you are not ready for enhanced technical powers yet. I hope you don't get put off being here as I know the Rfc can be a hard process, SqueakBox 16:02, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I do believe you should have restored what you deleted. Bletch did not delete it so it was not his responsibility to replace it. If we make mistakes handling the wiki technology we should correct them ourselves, with help from an admin if necessary. I hope and trust there won't be a repeat performance, SqueakBox 16:21, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 18:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Antony Flew & Scientific Community

If you don't mind, I would like you drop me a message and tell me (a) Why you don't think Antony Flew is notable in light of his conversion and (b) Why you prefer "the scientific community" rejects it instead of "most of the scientific community" rejects it.

-Irishsgb

Article: Wrestling Rappers

This is the article I saw last night that I don't know what to do with. The only thing Wrestling Rappers really says is the existence of John Cena's album You Can't See Me which, as you can see, already has a sizable article going into much more detail. I don't know quite what to do with it. --AmyBeth 05:42:19, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Please check out this request for comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#User:Ombudsman--Agiantman 20:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Gifted

On the gifted talk page, you indicate that you're working on a rewrite. Is this still the case? If not, I'll continue to work on it. If it is, though, I'll hold off until I see your contributions.

Phillip 22:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

"Wrongful abortion" rewrite

I retooled the "wrongful abortion" article after you marked it for clean-up. It's not a subject I'd normally tackle, I admit, but I thought that my contributions would be helpful. Apparently not. See the talk page and my revert of my own changes on the history page. Your direction would be appreciated. Thanks. --Kyd 19:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I appreciated your comment,

Made here, and I wanted you to know that regardless of your intent (I assume you were making an entirely impartial comment), I took it well, and don't intend to oppose your next bid for adminship. In hindsight I think my unhappiness w you at that time was largely circumstantial, and not betraying any inherent failing of your character. My impression of you has now been raised to dead even, or perhaps even mildly favorable. Cheers, Sam Spade 16:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Abortion

You most recent edit left something of a mess on the first sentence of the article. Also, I think that it removed valuable information from the first paragraph. Just an opinion.—Gaff ^ταλκ 00:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Abortion addition removed

Exactly what was the problem with the submission I entered? It didn't have enough big words to confuse people? You claimed it was overly simplified, and non-topical for a summary article? Um, in the heading "Abortion Debate" under the article "Abortion", what exactly do you think a "this is what it boils down to" IS? I put the text in the abortion debate section fo the abortion article, and you remove it? I did exactly what you claimed I didn't do. PLUS you removed a link from a Pro-Life organization that was there before I even showed up on this topic.

I am reverting your changes to that link, and submitting my article in the talk section right now.ģ

Picture Abortion

Maybe I'm uploading the wrong pictures and I'm sorry but I really don't see copyrights on half of these pages. How can I tell if an Image is copyrighted? Chooserr

We Miss You

Thanks for the note. I'm sorry to hear about your troubles. I hope everything resolves for you quickly. Your absence is totally understandable and it's obvious why something non-essential, like Wikipedia, would have to take a backseat. Truth be told, you probably are the one keeping the article concise and informative and the discussion rational and on course. In the first day without you, I got embroiled in a silly edit war — which, I realize, was probably little more than a coincidence. We're lucky to have such a great team, though, and I look forward to you rejoining us when things have smoothed out. -Kyd 00:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

abortion talk

Do not remove comments about the article content, bias of sources and POV of edits/editors. Goodandevil 17:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me know if you decide to Rfc, Tzn - thnx KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll second that. -Kyd 10:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

I saw that Goodandevil deleted your comments and the others, I was in process of restoring them, but saw that you did it already. Thanks. I'm gathering up personal testimonies about what you asked. If I can find any statistics (which I think will be harder to find than a needle in 10,000 acres of hay) then I'll post them though.

Please stop deleting my comments and then blaming me moments later for restoring them and unintentionally losing comments posted by others after your vandalism. Your mess is not mine to clean up. This message concerns your recent blanking of all or part of Wikipedia pages - please stop. If you feel that the page should be deleted, please see the deletion policy. Goodandevil 17:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Bias of edits is due to editor bias. When no user names are used, generic discussion of a general bias in an articel is precisely what talk pages are for. Your logic is quite twisted to not allow discussion of article bias in a particular article and its causes in the article talk page. I will Rfc if you continue to delete my pertinent comments from the talk page. I have already posted a vandalism in progress warning on the appropriate page noting your repeated disruptive deletions. Goodandevil 18:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Greetings from the United Federation of Planets

What are you upto havent heard from you for ages.  :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see

User_talk:KillerChihuahua#Try_to_be_civil

KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk: abortion re: the to-do list

I'm not sure what the procedure is here to edit the page, but it's been a few days since I've posted the survey of general American's beliefs on "scientifically, what is a fetus/embryo?". Nobody's come out and denied anything, but again I think the poll shows the average person's (> 2/3rds of people) understanding of what a fetus/embryo is, is flawed. At this point I'd like your support to change the first sentence to the compromise version, without the words "being" in it, to satisfy the rest on there, as I really don't feel like debating for another few weeks over the word "being", although I think "human being" does a better job, I think just "unborn human" covers it adequately. Barwick 18:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Admin

Are you one yet? Would you like to be? If so, I'll try to get someone who doesn't polarize votes (like I do) to nominate you. BYT 16:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Any objection to me trying to get you nominated? On the clear understanding that you must call me out on strikes whenever you believe that I have swung and missed at something? BYT 16:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

RE: Hello!

Been busy and keeping my head down. About to get back into the mix though. And dear god your talk page looks pretty.--Tznkai 16:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What? You in a wiki-trench? O_o'

Oh thank you, actualy lots of userpages out there have been my design recently ^-^' --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hope all goes well for your father

Hi, Tznkai. Sorry to hear that your father has had a stroke. I hope that all goes well, and that we'll see you back regularly at the abortion page soon. By the way, I've changed my user name, but you can probably still work out who I am. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 09:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I also would like to express my sorrow and support for you at this time. You are in many people's thoughts. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

War on Christmas edits

Hi. I see you're doing some major edits on the War on Christmas article. I just wanted to let you know about something that's come up a few times already, before you were involved. Your current revision says:

"War on Christmas is a contraversial term reffering to an alleged campaign to remove the Christian religious elements from the celebration of Christmas in the United States of America. "

We've reverted several such intros because they say the War on Christmas is a "term". The article should be about the "alleged campaign", not the "controversial term referring to an alleged campaign". In other words, the concept, not the word. I'm telling you here because you have the major edit tag up, and I don't want to edit the article while you're moving furniture around. Merry Christmas, anyway, if you celebrate Christmas, that is. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand your reply... I just meant that Wikipedia articles are not about phrases, but about the concepts to which those phrases refer. Thus, the Statue of Liberty is a statue, not a term that refers to a statue, etc. Does that make sense? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I agree that this isn't the most clear-cut case. Writing about something whose very existence is disputed is difficult to do in a neutral way. For some, it's a real thing, for others, it's just a term for something made-up. How do we seem not to favor either side? I appreciate your major edits; that article has been in need of serious work for a while. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

(Transfer from Parayoxim(?)'s talk) I will revert your last edits to the target page, because they didn't create a new commercial specifically to include the Christians, and to say they did is a misrepresentation of the facts. Think, on the 12th the boycott started and when were the commercials released? Before Christmas several days so say they had 10...they dragged everyone out there, and spent all that money to film a new commercial? I don't think so. To make it more clear that same commercial branded as "new" was on before the 12th...meaning...that they just changed the end slide. Chooserr 23:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if my last edit was the 2nd or 3rd revert, I'll check, but if I have one more I will revert it for the reasons stated above. Chooserr 23:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Well my edits are if not provably accurate or atleast logically accurate, so can I please restore my edit to the Target Section. I don't intend to cause an edit war, but it makes sense. 1 + 1 always equal 2. Chooserr 23:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

War on Christmas conduct

• Would you please explain why you believe you should be given priority in editing the article over everyone else? Major changes on hotly debated topics usually come after discussions on the talk page, and that's where I'm respectfully asking you to explain your puzzling conduct. Flyboy Will 00:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There's a world of difference between being bold and being arrogant. There's nothing wrong with a major rewrite, but when there are ten people trying to change the article during the same time, you should not be curt when reverting them. Anyway, now that you've stopped it doesn't matter any more, but in the future try to be more careful when archiving talk pages. You're not the only editor at wikipedia. Flyboy Will 00:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Flyboy Will (talk · contribs) that you should be more careful in the future and please consider Wikipedia policy on article ownership. Edit behavior like this has been an RfC & ArbCom issue before, and goodness knows we don't want that. Thanks. -Scm83x 00:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I am trying to guess at what's in your head because that's what others will do. Then, instead of being civil, things will get ugly. Just don't want what should be a good article devolve into some horrid NPOV/notability/ownership dispute that shouldn't even exist. Just looking out for ya, because your actions do speak for themselves: they indicate you're a good editor. ;-) -Scm83x 00:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• No problem about getting defensive; we all do it sometimes when we're in the middle of edit conflicts. I will definitely be watching this War on Christmas debate to make sure it stays civil :-D. Thanks for the compliment on my girlfriend; she's the greatest and I'm sure she'll blush when she hears your comment. Thanks! -Scm83x 01:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"Mr. Pot? Mr. Kettle on line 3..."

"...He says you're black."

Take your own advice and lose down your snide little lecturing tone. Also, maybe you ought to take a glance at WP:DICK yourself, as well as WP:POINT for your unilateral deletion -- not move -- of an ongoing discussion. --Calton | Talk 01:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

What fire?

I have nothing to do with the new "Once Moore" Page. I think it should be deleted. So foward these complaints to the author.

Parys 03:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

However i can be called a pedo, a liar, a hoaxer, and all around slimeball and that's ok. Also i was told that Mandy Moore is going to sue me. AND this was put in a main article. However that's fine. I am not lying about that, If someone can threaten me, vandalize boards and get away with it, i should be allowed to defend myself. Parys 03:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well i apologized to the admin... I am sorry, I respect this site. But i refuse to say sorry to the user. If that's the case do ban me. Parys

I know and thank you. I'm not a bad guy, but like have mention before I am human, and i get P.O'd. But thank you. Parys

Fun

Regarding your idea of an Abortion statistics article - its a noteworthy idea, maybe even a great idea, but I wonder about your idea of "fun" (small joke). I will help if I can, you know I like finding sources. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Good to see you too: A note from A ghost

It feels right to be back. I understand your frustrations. And the fallout from the FuelWagon vs Ed Poor debacle brought me back. They're both my friends, and I feel horridly about how that went. I doubt I would've made a difference, but I feel I have a Karmic debt.--ghost 13:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

A chiding followed your note. I'll try to play hall monitor if it helps you spend more time there.--ghost 20:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Your RfA

No, it doesn't look like there's any opposition any more. --King of All the Franks 22:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact, it looks like his vote was neutral, although he might have opposed at first. Best of luck! --King of All the Franks 22:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi

I answered your question on my Rfa. Hopefully I had a good answer. The best to you on your Rfa too. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved from user page

• If any one is desperate enough to "turn to" the encylopedia that "anyone" can edit, than they deserve everything they get08:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)08:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)08:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)08:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)08:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Namr.

Re: abortion

I tend to be a lot less lenient in terms of these things. I am not willing to compromise the quality of the article for any reason. The current version of the text, which is the consensus and work of many users, should not be replaced based on the unspecified objections of one new, unfamiliar user — not even during the limbo period pending the decision in Talk. Let the user win the case for the new version first — then we make changes. -Kyd 19:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Didn't realize that's what you meant. My bad. X__X -Kyd 19:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Free Republic

I was reading the topic on the Free Republic forum. I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to explain Wikipedia to them. If this helps to avert one edit war, or introduce one new editor to Wiki, then it's been worth your while. -Kyd 03:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Mentorship

Don't know of one. Told him about the nature of this particular protocol. Martial Law 22:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

On editing a closed nomination

Just revert your edit, no big thing. --Cecropia 23:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting

Thanks for waiting for my opinion on the Jesus talk page. My solution would be a completely different template with important links. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

'ullo

Well I'm glad that you think it's admirable that I have strong convictions, I just think it's natural. Anyway I think I can stand you, for you haven't really said anything to me that indicates I wouldn't, and I haven't seen enough of your edits. I'm not sure what article you where talking about though because while I sent out the message I wasn't messing around with the penis article any more. My last whatever edits have been on two templates and on the Anti-pope stub thing. Chooserr 06:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I tried to make a case for its removal on the talk page a while back saying it is overly offensive and discourages me from reading the content which I find may be useful. I think if you can't put that picture up on the front page, you oughtn't be able to place it on wikipedia. Chooserr 06:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what expertise you mean. I don't really have any that I know of, but if you need some help I probably could find out or get someone to help you depending on the question. Chooserr 06:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll see if I can fix up any of it. Chooserr 07:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

WPSPAM invite

Hey there! I saw you reverting or removing linkspam. Thanks! If you're interested, come visit us in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam so we can work together in our efforts to clean spam from Wikipedia. -- Perfecto 19:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being fair

Thanks for your efforts to treat Chooserr fairly. I'm going to blank (well, archive) my talk page before I go to bed tonight, and am also going to take Wikipedia off my "Favorites" in my browser. Otherwise, I'll just keep spending time here that I need to spend elsewhere! I don't intend to look in again after that until I have finished my assignments. But I feel a bit happier knowing that you're around. Good luck with your RfA, though I hardly need to say that at this stage. It's going so well, that I don't think you could fail it now unless a whole pile of unexpected opposers arrived! Hope your father is okay. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 19:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Peter Menke, aka, 84.149.242.193

I left a message on his user page, requesting that he stop making the same edit and noting that criterium is not a word. Jim62sch 22:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

RfAr

Responding here so as to not clutter the RfAr page (a little late for that, I suppose). My view is that when an admin abuses his (or her) power a fundamental breach has occurred. The matter in dispute at this point is whether an administrator has exercised power legitimately. It seems clear to me that there is a fundamental dispute over whether Kelly Martin has done so, reflected by the unusually contentious and confused RfC. In particular, the fact that dozens of administrators expressed disquiet at her actions suggests to me that the legitimacy of her actions is in dispute.

In such a case, mediation does not strike me as a valid process, as the dispute turns over an executive dispute, not a content one, nor even civility. While there are extant grievances over the latter two, those could be handled separately (the former with discussion on the relevant WikiProject or TfD, the latter with Mediation).

However, this matter of administrative accountability is separate and must be handled as such. There is no specific mechanism for judging or ratifying the decisions of administrators—one reason why the vast majority of us rely on consensus-distilling pages such as AfD, RfD, TfD, etc. While such decisions can be reviewed, such action is rare and a reversal even rarer.

However, in this case, there was no attempt to determine consensus, and it is clear that none exists. Executive action without consensus (be it based on pre-existing consensus, such as policy, or distilled consensus, like a deletion debate) is in my view illegitimate. It is unclear what authority she acted on save her own.

Based on the above, I argue that only the Arbitration Committee has the authority to weight the evidence and decide whether or not Kelly Martin acted legitimately in deleting these userboxes. It isn't about what was deleted, or who was offended, but rather about who and what was ignored. I hope this helps explain my position. Mackensen (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've augmented my original statement, though I hold out little hope that it will be read. Thanks for prodding me to explain myself. Mackensen (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

EC/Abortion

Dear Tznkai, thanks for your thoughtful replies tonight on Abortion. Unfortunately not all editors imitate you. But it's late now (at least around here) and I'm off to bed. I will address the appearent threats and attacks tomorrow. Your weighing in would be welcome. Goodnight, Str1977 02:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing comments

While I respect your judgement more than you know, I stand by what I said on that page entirely. Throughout this whole saga, Sam, instead of trying in any way, shape, or form to resolve this dispute, has actively tried to lynch Kelly and others. He's simply baying for blood, and having worked with him for three years, it's about time he grew out of behaving like this. Ambi 08:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you're right, and your latest round of edits made sense. I apologise - there's no point escalating this any further. Ambi 08:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin

You are behaving very badly here. Please remove yourself from the equation and allow others to take action, if such is necessary. Sam Spade 08:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

As I told Ambi, I make no judgements on either of you, or really much on Kelly, but I am enforcing both the spirit and the letter of WP:NOT WP:RPA WP:NPA WP:CIVILITY. If you want to berate Ambi, take it to her talk page. If you like the old RFC, go ahead and say so, but you are perfectly capable and required by the above policies to do it nicely--Tznkai 08:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You are in error, and have lost my respect. Please rethink your actions. If they are of any merit, someone else will do the work for you. Sam Spade 08:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

FreeRepublic

Hi Tznkai, kudos to you for your attempt at explaining the Wikipedia project to the freepers, perhaps we'll a few good editors out of it, despite the overall atmosphere of where they come from. -- Ze miguel 14:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ask again

Just ask 'em again. Persistence is key. Everyking 06:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, how do you interpret the response? I don't know to interpret it. Is Raul saying he agrees? Everyking 08:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 08:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

Hello Tznkai. Thank you for supporting my Rfa! :) I will try my best to be a good administrator. Please ask me if you need any help. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations ...

... on your recent promotion. I know you're going to do a great job and (not to put too fine a point on this) I also know you won't take any crap, which was, frankly, the chief attraction of your candidacy as far as I was concerned. Personally, I don't plan on giving you any crap, but I feel strangely comforted knowing that if I did, you'd be all over me. :) Very good news for the project. Looking forward to working with you. BYT 21:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on your promotion. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Congradz F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 21:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Tznkai, quizmaster

Tznkai, thank you for allowing me to prove my mettle with the IRC quiz, and thank you for deciding to vote support. I'm so emotional right now...perhaps a poem will express what's in my heart:

Roses are red
Violets are blue
All my bases
Are belong to you

Thank you so much. Babajobu 00:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Advocate

Did you ever think blocking someone might be incompatible with advocating for them? Your move was the worst one of all. With friends like these, as they say. Everyking 22:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Like a defense lawyer who argues his client couldn't have committed the robbery in question, because he was off committing a different robbery on the other side of town at the same time. I need that kind of advocacy like I need my toenails ripped out. You told me when you agreed to advocate for me that you would uphold my views in your capacity as an advocate, and then you went and stabbed me in the back. Let me suggest that advocacy ain't really your thing. Everyking 06:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

My response to that is argue for innocence of both robberies, which should be easy if it's the truth. You seem to have a extraordinarily poor grasp of what advocacy is about. Everyking 06:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Request

You voted in the Arbitration election to give me "compassionate leave". I really don't feel as though I need compassionate leave. Might I ask you to reconsider? Kelly Martin (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I shall be perfectly frank and let you in on some of my personal life to set aside your false assumptions. First, I have seasonal affective disorder. Normally it's not so bad, but this year it has been worse than in past, partly because the weather has been unusually bleak, and partly because of the next thing I'm going to mention. Second, one of my housemates -- the one that doesn't work, but stays home and takes care of the house and kid -- injured himself a few weeks back, forcing me to do much more of the housework than I usually do. This forced me to spend more time indoors doing housework than I normally do, and cut into my time for personal relaxation as well. Third, work has been unusually hectic the past few months. The first item will resolve itself in a few months as the days get longer. The second has been resolved; his back is better and I'm not doing as much housework as I used to. The third, well, that might resolve or not. But I think you're making a post hoc, ergo propter hoc mistake regarding my mood of late, and ask that you trust me when I say that serving on ArbCom is not the source of my recent snippiness. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

rfarb

I actually may change my vote. I understand I have until the 22nd to look into this. My vote was shooting from the hip. I would actually prefer to have you judging arbitration cases than most of the other candidates. The point is that I am involved in an arbitration case for the second time now, and the amount of time wasted by this stuff is disheartening. I would much prefer to have a quicker route to arbitration for blatant trolling or disregard of policy: Once good faith cannot be assumed any longer, it is mostly pointless to drudge through weeks of edit warring and rfc, and finally document the whole sad thing as evidence at the rfar, and the arbitrators will have to wade through all this stuff. It should be possible to put people who make clear their disregard for policy on probation within days. With the size of the project at this point, trolling just wastes too much resources. Because I feel this way, I was a little put off by your apparent view that arbitration must be an ultima ratio only to be invoked after all other efforts have failed time and time again. But upon re-reading your statement, I admit that it is more pragmatic than I understood at skimming it (there are a lot of candidates, sorry). dab (ᛏ) 10:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

btw, do you know how many of the now 65 candidates will be elected? This may affect my voting behaviour. dab (ᛏ) 10:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom candidate userbox

Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.

{{User arbcom nom}}

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Border

• Delete a person who runs his own webpage to attack a religion. Agree with what Just zis Guy, you know? said about every bigot having an article. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting Ali Sina with your generalizations, I wonder why? Here we see the true face of Anonimous editor , not the one he presents at his request for adminship. Ali Sina is a humanist and stands for human rights and freedom of religion , freedom of thought and speech. He has taken a couragous stand against human oppresion of the vilest kind. I wonder why you omit to mention that? --CltFn 13:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a borderline personal attack, uncivil, and clearly unhelpful to building the respect and good faith that an enyclopedia needs Don't do it again.

It is interesting that you make nothing of that editor calling the subject of an article a bigot, I guess that is what you mean by respect, faith and civility.--CltFn 05:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Noam Chomsky might say it better than I.

• If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.(Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, 1992)
• It's extremely important to preserve freedom of speech, and not to grant the state the right to determine what is or isn't said. A sometimes conflicting right is privacy and protection against verbal or other forms of violence. Once the state is granted the right to prevent speech (writing, songs, etc.) that it claims might precipitate harm, we're on a very dangerous slope. (Noam Chomsky ZNet forum reply, August 7, 2005)

--CltFn 05:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no right to free speech on Wikipedia. We demand you remain civil.--Tznkai 06:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you do not agree with Chomsky's statement on Free speech. "We demand"? how many people are you? I thought I was talking to a singular unit. Remain civil ? Have I not been civil with you in my communications? Anyway thanks for your profound insights and have a nice day, no reply needed.--CltFn 04:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

from user page

Sorry for vandalizing pages, man. I got your message.

thin skinned

no

Request for input

My talk page, Abortion section. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit logs

Sorry for harsh edit logs. You're not the problem. Woke up this morning hoping for a productive day but apparently here's another day spent retreading old paths. X_X -Kyd 19:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteering

Tznkai,

I've been "requested" to get your input on the freeper known as Goodandevil and the vandalism to principally Abortion, but also Samuel Alito, Miscarriage and Kwanzaa. I'm sure you know the rest, there a good deal of information on KillerChihuahua's talk page about what we've gathered, and I've put in a Request for CheckUser on this guy to check which are the IPs this guy/gal has been using. Would appreciate any help/comments/input you may help. Thanks! Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 22:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Close to 3RR

As Splash said, you are close to 3RR, so be careful yourself.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 03:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahh the irony, the admin is blocked and the new user's right to edit a page has been restored.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 03:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC) You said you are a recent admin, and I do know that for sure[5]. However, that really means that you should have edited less and used talk more. You kept changing the template to comprimise, but was there any order to it? It looks like you were just trying different combos. I have said much over this conflict, so I think it is time for me to focus elsewhere.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 17:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

KDRGibby

I am filing an arbcom request on him. Do you wish to be involved as a party? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 10:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The request for arbitration concerning this user has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#KDRGibby. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 10:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Wesleyanism

Wesleyan theology is evangelical. It has been so since the inception of conetmporary evangelicalism, about a century ago. Now, hyper-Calvinists deny that Wesleyanism is evangelical, but that doesn't change reality. In fact, a good way to spot a hyper-Calvinist is to see whether or not they consider Wesleyan thought (or Arminianism) evangelical. I don't really care much for hyper-Calvinism, obviously, and while I do affirm Calvinism as a "subset" of evangelicalism, I don't consider hyper-Calvinists evangelical...heck, they're barely Christian, in my view. Hope this helps...I'm happy to talk more about it. KHM03 18:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC/KM

You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin#Archiving_this_RfC. CastAStone|^(talk) 03:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for supporting me on my Rfa, Tznkai! I appreciate your trust. I know I'm not perfect, (I hope I'm never vain enough to think so!) but I try. (Your comment made me feel like Mary Poppins!) The puppy is now an Admin (final tally 58/7/2) Please let me know if there is anything I can ever do to assist you. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Congrats!

I know that this is late-come (demonstrates how out of the loop I am), but you cannot know how ineffably pleased I am to learn that you've been made an admin. You're absolutely qualified to fill the role. The abortion article would be lost without your constant leadership and mediation! Thanks for everything! -Kyd 05:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Me too, usually re 3RR

Thats why I usually don't participate in 3RR...tho when I see someone trying to game the system like OnwardsCS I tend to speak up.

Replied here since just to get my note on 3RR took 3 edit conflicts ;) --Syrthiss 18:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Islamofascism protection template

Sorry for removing the protection template; I meant only to remove the disabled redirect. Was it a software glitch? Did I blink? We'll never know. (But I do think you should have removed the entire line of the redirect - having "REDIRECT foo" at the top of the page is ugly.) FreplySpang (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm waiting for MSK's response (which I think is important)...

... but if you want to accelerate matters on Islamofascism (term), let me know, and I will begin making the case at Request for merge. (I assume that's the link I'm looking for?) Unless you would rather do the honors yourself, in which case I'll shut up. BYT 19:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think, actually, this will go more smoothly (and whatever outcome emerges will have more legitimacy) if an admin makes the proposal at Wikipedia: Proposed mergers, rather than a participant. I just have too much of a history with the page. Can you do this, or point me towards someone uninvolved I can ask to do it? Maybe User:Krich? I will abide by whatever outcome emerges here, promise. BYT 20:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Gone

Hey, no problem at all of course. Was good talking to you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sannse (talk • contribs) 20:51, 16 January 2006

I think we're on the verge of a breakthrough at Islamofascism (term)

Don't know if you've been following this page today; if not, can you please take a look? Many thanks. BYT 20:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Please change the merge tag to make clear its no longer disputed. My arguments seems to have convinced the Mistress not to oppose :)--Urthogie 21:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Mistress Selina Kyle continued violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL

I noticed your comment on MSK's talk page and thought you might be interested in her further violation of WP:CIVIL at the talk page for Template:User Aspie. [6] --malber 21:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Returning?

Thanks. :-) I'd appreciate it. No rush, though. Probably just need to scale back myself. -Kyd 21:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Abortion

Was on the same wavelength as you there, buddy! I made one minor change - that is, the table is now left-justified since the space around the TOC is now free. IMHO it looks more structured. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Abortion

I, Jamyskis, hereby award you this Barnstar for your long-standing and exceptional attention to quality, not to mention resilience in the face of countless vandalism, on the Abortion article. Keep it up!

Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Islamist terrorism

There are some wierd discussions going on & on here . Your presence might help . Thanks . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Tznkai, I think it's time this was deleted [7]? It's probably best I don't do it. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Updating list of protected pages

Hi, I noticed that you protected the page Islamofasicm. In future, would you please put list any pages protected on Wikipedia:Protected_page. Thanks. novacatz 07:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ago

No problem about the 3RR, I'm leaving it now. I'm really not trying to make a religious point, even though it might appear so. I just think it sounds better. If that's not acceptable, what about BP? Arcturus 21:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

????

WHAT KIND OF THING? --Conrad-14 year old socialist 21:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I WAS MERELY EXPRESSING AN OPINION. --Conrad-14 year old socialist 21:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

IT WASN'T A "PERSONAL ATTACK" --Conrad-14 year old socialist 21:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

HOW'S THIS?: Awfully sorry to disagree with you old chum, i have the upmost repect for you and your absurd opinions, nice weather we're having, is that a new tie? it matches your eyes. I apologise profusely for disagreeing with you (awfully sorry for the spelling, comrade) But i feel the need to express an opinion to the effect of: YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN AND A FRIEND OF DWAIN'S. I AM AN ATHEIST AND AN ENEMY OF DWAINS. ABORTION IS GOOD. ABORTION IS GREAT. THE POPE IS A BASTARD. BUSH IS A DICK. CATHOLICISM IS FAKE. YOU ARE A CATHOLIC. I AM A SOCIALIST.

Once again, very sorry. Sorry if capitals seem frightening. How's the wife? --Conrad-14 year old socialist 21:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Conrad, I am a fifteen year old Christian communist. Ho-hum. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Kelly Martin RfC

I've blocked you for 2 hours due to your 3RR violations at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin. The edits you reverted were not vandalism. However, I don't feel your actions were particularily egregious, and I've only blocked for 2 hours. -Greg Asche (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright.--Tznkai 00:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on the Kelly Martin RfC, already rv once. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 00:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you felt the comments were disruptive. I also agree tht it's a bad idea for things to be discussed in more that one spot, and that the RfC wasn't the place for it. I just reckon that by blanking these kind of comments that it both gives the impression that only "approved" talk is allowed and that there is a cabal. Perhaps just popping in an edit like "hey use the Clerk talk page" would have been good? By posting my link to the village pump I was trying to discourage fragmented discussion, but we shouldn't be discouraging discussion in general. - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

My restriction

All right, thank you Tznkai. I have decided to disengage myself from the dispute and the discussion as it rapidly descended into a flame war and I do not feel it is productive for me to continue discussing with those who want to accuse others of being in support of killing innocent civilians. Yuber^(talk)

Yuber

Hi Tznkai, FYI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Yuber

Hi Tznkai. How do you ban someone from just one article, is there a special page? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Šokci

It seems to me you can unblock the page. Neoneo13 left the disscussion and Panonian said he wont interfere. Our conclusion is that Šokci speak Serbo-Croatian language. Luka Jačov 11:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Block the article again. Panonian tricked us all! Please! Luka Jačov 22:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Clerk application approved

Your application to become a clerk for the Arbitration Committee has been approved. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Administration is for recording organizational work and communication between clerks. Raul654 18:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Block the article again. Please! Luka Jačov 22:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Y cant u protect it now? Luka Jačov 19:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

Hi, Tznkai. Congratulations. I've just seen the message above. I was to drop you a note when I finished my wikibreak. Chooserr seems to have settled down a bit. I hope you didn't mind that I sort of overruled you on Conrad- 14 year old socialist. I saw his message, and a few others, and saw that he had been warned, so decided to block. Then I saw your message to him, which was basically giving him one more chance. I could have held off, but then I looked through more of his contribs, and saw that he had more attacks. Also, his messages to you, while not abusive, were definitely unrepentant. So I gave him two days to cool off, with an offer to unblock if he apologized. As soon as his two days were up, he posted a "hello" to my tallk page, and said he'd follow the rules. At least he doesn't seem to bear a grudge. I actually quite like him, and I'm hoping he'll settle down.

Concerning the accusations that Giovanni33 made — that I rounded up the troops, and that I encouraged edit warring on my side, etc., I left a reply ("Ann's reply") at his talk page. It may not interest you, but I thought I'd let you know, because you might have been monitoring his talk page during his block, and therefore might have seen his accusations, but not my reply.

Sorry you got blocked recently. I was very much opposed to the mass deletion of userboxes outside of process, but I do think that it's unbecoming to keep bashing Kelly now that she has apologized and has lost her arbcom seat. I actually tried to revert that page as well on one occasion, but someone else got there before me.

Cheers, and congratulations again. AnnH ^(talk) 20:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Question about Jarndyce and Jarndyce

... oops, wrong extended case, must be watching too much Masterpiece theatre... I meant Islamofascism (term)

)

Listen, I really do think that a good compromise position has emerged. We keep the Islamofascism (term) page (note huge change in my position there), turn Islamofascism into a protected disambig page (Geminon just proposed what might be on that page), and move on.

What do you think of this idea? Does the page seem to have consensus, or the potential for consensus, to support it? Help! BYT 16:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Admin cabal

Just noticed you joining the admin cabal, sorry I couldnt vote on your rfa as I wasnt aware, but it isn't like you need to beg for votes. Banzai! --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 00:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR double standard?

Hi Tznakai. Ann had reported me for violating the 3RR rule and edit warring and I argued that she and others pushing POV were doing the same. I want to point out this she just violated the 3RR rule with the lastest warring going on. I have been careful not to violate this but to ask that this caes be made on the talk page. Despite from me and others, waiting, there is there is no response yet on the talk page for days about this dispute. I have suggest that they stop edit warring, and ask that those who this version (seems to be only one editor Str1977, who also reverted many times) at least make their case instead of blindly reverting. Ann always seems to support his Rv's, which suggests a possible meat puppet. Here is the evidence. I want to see if there is a double standard or if the rules apply equally to everyone, as I think it should.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=38385983&oldid=38384074

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=38403075&oldid=38400630

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=38507904&oldid=38507249

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=38510080&oldid=38510031

Thanks. Giovanni33 21:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ann's response

Hi, Tznkai. I've moved Giovanni's post here: he incorrectly placed it on your user page, where you mightn't have noticed it. It's quite true that I violated 3RR. It was an accident. I looked through the history to count my reverts beforehand, and missed my username when looking lower down on the page. I have now self-reverted my fourth revert,[8] and have also responded to Giovanni's valid accusation (which is mixed with some invalid accusations) here.

I vehemently deny that I "and others pushing POV" had been "doing the same" i.e. violating 3RR. This is my first ever violation, and it happened through an accident. Giovanni, on the other hand, reverted 11 times on one occasion, plus six, five, and four times on other occasions. Each time he was warned when the violation was approaching, rather than afterwards. And each time, he continued. Because of the controversial nature of his edits, he met with huge opposition from others, but unlike him, the others did not blatantly violate the rule. In fact, there was one occasion when KHM03 left a message for Str1977 saying that he (KHM03) could not revert again for the day, but that he was not happy with Giovanni's edit. Then, KHM03 did not revert again. However, Giovanni continued to revert, despite warnings, and I eventually reported him, as the worst edit warrior I had ever encountered.

Regarding the meatpuppet suggestion, Str1977 and I come from different countries, did not originally edit the same articles, and have never met each other. That we both share the same ideas is hardly surprising, since we are both Catholics who follow the official teachings of our Church. The question of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry has come up though, because when Giovanni arrived and his very controversial edits were reverted, four new users showed up, to support him on the talk page, and to revert for him. They have since appeared on every (or nearly every) article where he meets opposition, and have voted for his version. One of them, BelindaGong, also violated 3RR on a few occasions, and was reported and blocked after ignoring repeated warnings.

I originally thought when Giovanni posted to my talk page about my violation that he was giving me an opportunity to undo this violation (which I did). You can see that since Giovanni was the first person I ever reported, I have a preference for giving people a chance to stop, especially if I think the violation might be an accident. (That's why I was so very slow to report him.) I now discover that I was overestimating his generosity, and that he did in fact report me! He also added something about me to his own talk page, with the heading "Hypocrisy?"[9] He seems to think that my first ever violation, which was an accident, on 6 February proves his claim on 26 January that I was reverting to the same extent as he.

Anyway, if you feel you should block me, please go ahead. I promise I'll take it like a man (even though I'm not one)! No hard feelings, and all that! My normal pattern before Giovanni and Belinda arrived was not more than one revert per day, on average. It has, unfortunately gone up since then, as has the pattern of other editors who had a prior history on that page, though there have been no deliberate 3RR violations since Giovanni and Belinda were blocked. Cheers, AnnH ^(talk) 23:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Anne's point of view and her arguments above, but I rather not spend my time defending myself or making the case, except to point out the plain fact of a 3RR violation. I also state that since Anne says it was an accident I'll assume good faith and request that she not be blocked. I just hope that the edit warring will be replaced by more use of the talk page instead. I and others (not socketpuppets), have been using the talk page and have compromised. If only a couple of editors on the side would do the same, it would be much more productive than simply undoing others well referenced and supported contributions that are clearly referenced with logical arguments for the inclusions.Giovanni33 14:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Islamofascism protection

Hey Tznkai: I've been one of many editors on the Islamofascism page, and would like to see it unprotected. I think the disambig thing hasn't caught on (but then, I hate that idea, so please don't take my word for it), and in any case, it's hard to vote when there are many proposals. And BYT, the person who instigated this whole thing, seems to have retired from Wikipedia. What do you think? IronDuke 01:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

March

End of March is approaching and I could really use your even keeled rationale on some controversial articles. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Abortion

Can you come visit and weigh in here? ____G_o_o_d____ 13:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)