User talk:Cactus.man/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

New Level 5 WikiStress Meter

Calm down dear, it's only WikiPedia

Having a bad day, too many edit wars, everything a bit too much? We all know how you feel.

Now you can tell everyone about it, get the new Level 5 WikiStress Meter you see here. Use is very simple and template driven. Check it out here.

Update

Lucanos has updated this for use with the 'regular' 3D stress meter template. Just insert '5' as the template parameter ;-)

Hey Cactus,

Sorry for not including the relevant credits in those pages I updated the other day. Still re-finding my WikiLegs... Love the WikiStress Meter #5 though!

--Lucanos 09:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Floating TOC

As a new user, I have landed in this discussion quite by chance when editing Tony Blair to attempt to make the article more readable. I was unaware of the controversy regarding floating TOC's, and simply reverted another users TOCright to TOCleft - this gave, IMHO, a much improved and more accessible layout. Anyway, I am of the opinion that the 'default' plain TOC should be used most of the time unless the layout becomes less than optimum due to the size of intro or TOC length. In these situations I think a floated TOC is acceptable, but personally I would think left is usually preferable.

Link on clinical depression

62.163.46.157 (talk · contribs), as you can see from his contributions, came to Wikipedia solely to insert external links, just to draw attention to his site or to make money from advertising. I remove these links without discussion. The Wikipedia policy for external links is being violated on a large scale, and especially health-related articles are frequently inundated with poor links. JFW | T@lk 20:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:Odalrune2.jpg

I posted it on Image for deletion instead because the speedy deletion policy states that "This does not include pictures that are merely similar, such as JPEG versions of PNG images." This is because of the advantages and disadvantages of each image file format; not everything can clearly be transferred. For instance, PNG's format is more suited for diagrams while JPEG is better for photographs. Thus, as a general policy, we do not speedy them right away. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I put a link to Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload#Why you should not save diagrams as JPEG onto the policy page. But we probably need to reword it a little more. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: David Cooper (footballer)

The current text of the article is dense and confusing, so I've taken a copy of it to my sandbox for a major re-write. I'm still working on trimming down the existing text. Once that's done I will research additional information (including the Pele thing, which I remember from somewhere too) to build it back up again.

I would also like to support your campaign to name major London landmarks after Scottish footballers. ;-) --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

List of Guantanamo Bay detainees discussion

I am relieved that other people appreciate the idea of documenting the confinement of the detainees.

But I have to tell you -- you said the list existed long before I started adding to it? That isn't correct. I started it about, two weeks ago, when I created eight or nine articles about individual Guantanamo detainees, and five of them were suggested for deletion. Half a dozen people suggested that they weren't notable to merit individual article, and that they should all merely be listed in a list of Guantanamo Bay detainees.

About hidden agendas... I won't presume to say that Joauquin has a hidden agenda. But catch this comment: So discuss their treatment (in a neutral way) in the article about the prison, but an article about each one of these non-notable people is only America-bashing. -- Geo Swan 22:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

My agenda is to be la voz de la gente. Joaquin Murietta 16:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

You are correct Geo, I didn't check the history properly and made an incorrect assumption. This doesn't change my view that the copy-vio notification is in bad faith. What bothers me about this is that Joaquin Murietta intimated that he would investigate his concerns about sources and return to discuss these. This pre-emptive copy-vio notification seems to me just to be a 'legal' method of achieving partial page blanking and imposition of a particular POV. Seems to me that you were just expending a great deal of energy to verify the list, and you did a fantastic job IMO.

As for the link you provide, well I recall that Zoe cited anti-Americanism in her listing of the main article on AfD. I reject that POV completely and did so in the AfD voting, as did others. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Democracy article

The Democracy article experienced 3 edits almost at the exact same time, including my revert. Not sure what the purpose was of your telling me about correcting the missed vandalism was about, but thanks.--MONGO 10:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the support

Friendly admin. Hmmm. Yeah. I know a guy. I am glad you like the map tool. I do like it, but it has its limits. I generate the maps, but use irfanview (a free download) for the captions. I came across some recommended guidelines for maps generated for the wikipedia. It listed some recommended colours, which this tool can't do.  :-(

Thanks for the support.  :-) -- Geo Swan 16:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help improving the Carolyn Wood article

Thanks for your help and advice in improving the Carolyn Wood article.

Would you car to take a look at the Jeffrey Waruch article, and the recent {AfD} applied to it?

JM said it should be merged. But the tag they applied to it was {AfD} not {mergeto}.

I have an email address registered with the wikipedia. Feel free to use it to contact me. -- Geo Swan 15:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Greetings from Aztlan!

Cactus-Person

I have dragged this over here so you can see it tambien. It is my gift to Geoswan. I have edited it just for you.

First, let me accept User:Geoswan's apology, placed on my talk page. He has made several accusations in anger, perhaps he is very young? Such conduct does not further his advocacy of the movement to free the detainees in Guantanamo.

Second, I customarily do not use the phrase "Gitmo", which I consider to be a symbol of Anglo and Scottish-American domination. (Tom Jefferson played the fiddle, he learned from the generation of Scots who preceded the Revolution). So I would ask you, User:Cactus Man to refrain from using that unattractive, overly-gutteral nickname. "Guantanamo" is svelte, linguistically-appropriate, and, of course, the actual name. Please reconsider your use of the phrase "Gitmo" as well as the socio-economic implications of nicknames imposed by your Anglo society on ours.

Third, I have rewritten several of the Guantanamo articles to eliminate the obvious POV problems and to correct what can only be described as glaring grammatical errors and generally terrible, horrible, no good, very bad writing.

With respect to the copyvio, Geoswan has spent more time karping about it than it would take to fix a table that was obviously lifted from the newspaper. So I gave him a source with original documents in .pdf I have other sources too. They are all online. Most are public domain. Why not improve the article?

And, as I said to Geo, if you are going to use Wikipedia to agitprop, then do it with class.

Con safos

Joaquin Murietta Stamping Out Oppression, One Palabra at a Time

PS Have you any interest in the Duke of Atholl?

I am not Cuban

5 la voz de la gente Joaquin, thank you for your interesting message on my talk page. You may believe you are the voice of the people, but you are mistaken. You are merely pushing your own POV by gaming the WP system through bad faith AfD copy-vio nominations. By all means express your views on article talk pages, and by discussion we can all reach concensus. I am still of the opinion that your AfD copy-vio nomination was a 'back door' suppression of valid information that did not accord with your POV and was wholly inappropriate.

a. not true. Joaquin Murietta 22:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

As to the points made in your message, my response, in your order, is:

First: any apology you wish to issue should be sent to User:Geo Swan, not me.

Declined. Joaquin Murietta 22:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Second: I do not use the phrase "Gitmo" either, never have, and never will.

Good for you. Joaquin Murietta 22:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

What exactly is the subject of the Anglo and Scottish-American domination that you speak of? What has Thomas Jefferson's alleged fiddle playing prowess got to do with the Guantanamo Bay detainees? Which society is "ours" that you refer to that has been imposed upon by "my" Anglo society? I can only assume you are referring to Cuba.

ROFL Joaquin Murietta 22:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Third: You are free to edit articles as you see fit. As with all edits, this will be open to review and alteration by other editors. As regards the alleged copy-vio, well we both know that was a bad faith nomination, come on now Joaquin, let's move on and edit articles properly and discuss differences responsibly.

No way, it was a copyvio. And I posted it in good faith. Joaquin Murietta 22:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

As for accusations of engaging in Agitprop, I suggest you drop a line to User:Randy2063 who is on the same wavelength.

the word wavelength reminds me of people who wear tinfoil hats. Joaquin Murietta 22:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Finally, I am not a fan of any of the the particular incarnations of the Dukes of Atholl, nor am I an expert on fiddlers.

then I can only assume you are English, in view of the last remark.Joaquin Murietta 22:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Good luck. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for my lack of research, but could you please post a map of Aztlán so that we can all understand where you are from - USA or Mexico? Regards. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Lack of Research is your middle name. ~

Kindest possible regards from AztlanJoaquin Murietta

Thanks

Joaquin, a despondent Troll pondering the lack of food

What a great start to the day, thanks Joaquin, you bring light, mirth and happiness by confirming that you are indeed a Troll. --Cactus.man ✍ 06:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Benyam Mohammed

I have edited Benyam Mohammed to cure the obvious POV issues and have added basic facts for any bio, such as date of birth, full name, the dates of events. The problem, is that Geo Swan, with your support, is on a mission to create these hundreds of politically motivated stubs, for the sole purpose of getting more hits on Google, on the Guantanamo detainee issue.

This is unfair to the subjects because he forgets to include the basic information one would put in any bio. Please see my comments at Talk:Benyam Mohammed. See also Leonard Weinglass, which I created versus Geo Swan's version of Clive Stafford Smith.

How does it help Wikipedia to have all these poorly-written stubs? Why don't you encourage him to clean them up? Joaquin Murietta 15:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Joaquin, thanks for your more measured response. I have now removed my ridiculous, knee jerk, 'Mexican Bandit' reply =:-) Editing articles to improve them is to be commended, keep up the good work. However, please do not engage in personal vendettas, which you seem to be doing with User:Geo Swan. I now seem to be drawn into this because I opposed your copy-vio listing on the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees.

There is no "mission" to create "politically motivated" stubs with a view to improving Google rankings, certainly not on my part. As far as I can see, Geo is just adding valuable information from the public domain that relates to a current political event. This is of huge importance in relation to human rights. From your post, and your edit history (and your recent Aztlan incarnation) it would seem to me that this is an area in which you have some interest. Your position is therefore perplexing to say the least.

Please just use your energies to improve articles and refrain from personal vendattas and attacks. I will now look at the articles you suggest. Yours (not catus-person, nor cactus-flower). --Cactus.man ✍ 18:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to talk about this some more if you don't mind.

I was not aware that you had called me a "Mexican Bandit". You have also accused me of being a (right wing?) Cuban. And a troll. And a plain old right winger. From the beginning, you have generally disregarded assume good faith.

On reconsidering all this, I think I see why you overreacted. You have uploaded a lot of (public domain) images and am I incorrect in assuming you were dragged in on the copyvio issue? Please correct me if I am making the wrong assumption.

Let me again repeat, I put the tag on in good faith. My read of Feist is different than yours. But I am willing to let the admins decide.

The only reason I placed the tag was because Geo Swan was deluging me with comments for having questioned his sourcing. Then I looked at the links, once he posted them, and I felt in good faith that he had lifted the table. Once I placed the tag, I was deluged with posts from Geo. He wanted me to talk to him back channel, to agree not to AfD anything, to talk endlessly with him.

As for the merits, User:Geo Swan has hundreds of articles in the making under his "gitmo" directory. I have no problem with that. He appears to have an agenda. I have no problem with that, either. I just want the articles to be NPOV and well-written. Right now they generally suck, except for the articles that others (like me) have re-edited.

Looking forward to your response. Joaquin Murietta 21:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Joaquin, there is not much more to be said on this matter, but some points need to be clarified:

• The 'Mexican Bandit' was merely a reference to Joaquin Murietta. The context in which it was (briefly) used can be found in the history of this page.
• I have never accused you of being right wing, but some of your actions in relation to Guantanamo Bay detainee articles could be interpreted as being motivated by right wing politics. Your edit history however indicates that the opposite may be the case. I have no idea what your political views are, nor do I care.
• I consider your reply here to be trolling.
• If you read my comments, you will see that I did assume good faith initially in relation to your copy-vio notice. I quickly came round to the view that it was a bad faith notification, based on what seemed to be some personal agenda with Geo Swan, and your actions in bypassing discussion, despite your promise to do so. You state that it was a good faith action, but your arguments contradict that position: "The only reason I placed the tag was because Geo Swan was deluging me with comments for having questioned his sourcing." We will have to agree to disagree on whether it was a good faith notification.
• I am not sure what over reaction on my part you are referring to. I was not 'dragged in' on the copy-vio issue, but became involved after expressing my views on the matter. I really was incredulous that it was listed, and remain so, but I am not about to rehash the debate again. I may have been 'dragged into' what appears to be the dispute between you and Geo Swan. Many of your actions Joaquin do appear to be motivated by some sort of personal vendetta. I am not here to take sides, and I would urge you to resolve your differences through discussion, not reverts, AfD nominations and point scoring on talk pages.
• We all want the articles to be NPOV and well-written, that is to be commended. I urge you again to use your energies to this end. If you feel the articles are sub standard, edit them as necessary. Discuss any major or controversial edits on the talk page as appropriate. There is not much point telling me that "they suck", that is a waste of your time and mine.

OK, lets consider this issue closed. I hope you and Geo can work out your differences amicably, and we can all get on with the task at hand. Regards. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Please look at Abderrahman Ahmad

I just edited Abderrahman Ahmad. I added his date of birth. Also, it appears your friend got his name wrong and he was arrested in Pakistan not Afghanistan. I deleted some irrelevant stuff and some NPOV outdated links. I added some recent news. Please let me know if these edits offend you in any way. By the way, I added a definition the List of political epithets. I was inspired by you! Cheers, old chap! Joaquin Murietta 18:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Charming photo of your mother!Joaquin Murietta 05:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Are you referring to the Troll or the chicken?   : )    --Cactus.man ✍ 09:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much

For the speedy reversion of my user page. My first! Patroling recent changes certainly brings its own special rewards. :D — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 10:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Please use the warning templates.

I noticed your harsh improvised warning to a user who had only made one revert. See User talk:202.159.197.213. Perhaps you might consider the WikipediaWarning templates, which provide consistency and assistance with your conclusions. Joaquin Murietta 08:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I used the standard template (2A) that was commensurate with the blanking, which was repeated later. Kindly get on with creating the many good articles that you seem to have created and stop monitoring my activities. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

One last effort

Joaquin, I am making one last effort to explain to you, in good faith, the reason for my warning on User:202.159.197.213's talk page. If you check my history of reverting vandalism you will see that I very rarely post warnings on user talk pages. Normally I find that after a one or two reverts they realise that there is no point in vandalising and they give up. Normally, if I do need to post a warning, I would start with Template:Test1. In this case however, the blanking was substantial and seemed to be specifically targeted to certain sections. I made a judgement call that this was not just a newbie test and applied the appropriate first level warning for blanking vandalism, Template:Test2a. Please carefully read the guidance at Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warning_templates which you eagerly flagged up on my user page. The appropriate section reads:

• {{subst:test2a}} (a variant suitable for blanking vandalism)
  • Please do not remove content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

This was precisely what I did in this case. This was not a harsh improvised warning as you incorrectly claim. Please be aware of facts before making accusations. The exact same blanking was then repeated twice by the same user, and once by you, restoring his blanking by reverting my clean up !!

I was surprised to see your response on the user talk page, and then my talk page merely 10 minutes or so after I posted the warning. I can only assume that you were monitoring my edits, which seems to be a relic from the User:Geo Swan / List of Guantanamo Bay detainees copy vio episode. I urged you at the time to resolve your differences with User:Geo Swan and move on to constructive editing. You seem to have made a lot of contributions in the shape of worthy new articles, but there still seems to be some element of personal animosity remaining over the previous episode. Please do not fall back into this unhelpful pattern. We can all make valuable contributions to this endeavour in our own way, and when there is disagreement, resolve it by constructive discussion.

I am hoping that you will not blank this explanation as you did with my last attempt to communicate regarding your comments to me. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Response to the comments on my talk page

In response to your comments on my talk page, I looked at the last few days of your user contributions. You are correct, you do not generally post second level warnings on anonymous user's talk pages. I assumed the worst because of your confrontational tone, ethnic remarks to me and other conduct. Joaquin Murietta 15:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

There was only one party engaged in any form of confrontation in our recent exchange Joaquin, and that was you. You are clearly not interested in any form of reconciliation or rational discourse so I will not respond further to any comment you may make. As for comments regarding ethnic remarks and other conduct (whatever that may be), well that is just laughable. Check the contents of some of your postings and message summaries before you accuse others of incivility.

I am pleased to see you have withdrawn the AfD on Executive Order 12333, which spares me the bother of commenting on another of your User:Geo Swan inspired nominations. I wish you well in creating your articles and urge you again to end this personal vendetta you seem to be engaged upon. Please don't bother replying, there is no point in further discussion. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)