User talk:GTBacchus/Archive 2

Seattle Wikimeetup

Still need a lift to Seattle? -- llywrch 19:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The meetup starts at 3:00, & it takes a couple hours to drive there. Add an hour for margin, I'd say we need tto leave at noon. -- llywrch 22:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I was planning on returning to Portland Saturday night: you're welcome to return with me or stay with your friends. BTW, I rechecked my AAA map, & discovered the travel time is closer to two & ahalf hours: could I pick you up at 11:30 instead? -- llywrch 19:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure -- email me with your address, & I'll give you my cell phone. (NE Portland? That's my part of town, too. We might just be neighbors.) -- llywrch 19:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for following up on the Julian Thome vandal. I suspected that the Julian Thome Pictures Company might be a lie but wasn't sure. Cedars 01:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes Camp in Portland

FYI RecentChangesCamp Tedernst | talk 22:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

War on Drugs comment

Please see my comment on the talk page of the War on Drugs article. Thank you sir.

--SamAdams

Unitheism

Thanks for the level-headed response on the unitheism article and VfD. I notice you left a message on User:Lindsayking's talk page; perhaps you could do the same for User:The Boomer?

Think I'll go back to my nice, uncontroversial addition of Olympics coverage now... Thanks again. -- Jonel | Speak 22:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey

GTBacchus,

I read over your comment on my talk, but can't say I agree with you. I don't believe they should be in the Pope section, and personally don't have enough knowledge in that area to make them into a feature-length article. That said I will stop reverting, because...It seems futile. I just wish there was a proper category for them, or something because I find that severely offensive. Chooserr 08:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar and antipopes

Hello again. I'm a little less busy now. I've just given you a kindness barnstar. I'm not great at formatting user pages, so feel free to move it around.

I saw your message to Chooserr about the pope stub template. I can see that reverting back to the general {{stub}} is inappropriate, but I was wondering if the {{pope-stub}} template could be edited in such a way as to make it suitable for popes and antipopes without making any kind of POV statement or offending anyone. I can understand how he feels — after all, it would be a bit crazy to write a short article about Lambert Simnel and put at the end, "This article about a British monarch is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." I thought perhaps we could have something like:

1. This article about the papacy is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
2. This papacy-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
3. This article about a pope or a claimant to the papacy is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
4. This article about a pope or a claimant to the papal throne is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

What do you think? I'm not sure that an article about an antipope is really about the papacy, although in a broad, loose sense, I suppose it is. The wording "papacy-related" sounds a little awkward, but not too bad, and is probably more accurate. If you have any ideas, please let me know. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 15:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Update — You're probably not passionately interested in whether it says pope or antipope, but since you were (very nicely) asking Chooserr not to keep reverting the pope stub template back to the general stub template, I thought I should let you know that the {{Anti-Pope-stub}} was undeleted last night. I hope there isn't going to be a wheel war. In any case, I don't think there was consensus for deletion. See here for the last evidence of comments before that subject was removed from WP:SFD. I know you didn't contribute there, but I thought I should let you know. Anyway, I'm not sure whether it would be better to relabel these antipope articles (I think the title of the stub should be changed from Anti-Pope to antipope) or to assume that that template is going to be deleted again and to try and reword the pope stub template, or to use the RCC or religious biography template. As I say, I doubt if the pope/antipope issue interests you greatly, but as far as I know you do take an interest in stub sorting. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 11:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Unitheism

Thankyou for the welcome and pointers. I am working my way throught them. Unitheism is a word with current uses. It would be unfortunate if the decision to have an entry on it became clouded by the questionable motivations and actions of one contributor.--The Boomer 16:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

unitheism debate

Hi GT,

I'm relatively inexperienced with Wikipedia so decided to write you first rather than attempt an edit on your writing. You can revise/respond as you see fit.

It is in reference to what you wrote on the unitheism discussion page--

"Ok, this page has been the site of a silly edit war. There's one person claiming to have coined the term in the 1970's, who has the domain name, and at least one other person denigrating that one person, for some reason. Let's stop reverting each other and talk about it. Why is the other person so wrong, huh? Say something here, on the talk page - it's what it's for. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)"

Sorry that unitheism has been such a headache. I think when you are talking about the person who claimed to coin the word you are talking about my friend Rev. King. The correction is that he doesn't own a unitheism-related domain name. I own unitheism.com, unitheism.org, unitheist.com, and unitheist.org, the address of the "Unitheist Church", my website on unitheism and related thoughts. The other domain names redirect to the latter and exist for the purpose of sending people who mistakenly type in com instead of org or unitheism instead of unitheist to the right place.

You might have thought Rev. King owned it because he has an article at the site, as does another person besides myself. Other than these two articles the site was written by myself, although I do not give myself credit, except on the title page of "Faith by Reason."

Some of these writings reflect my own individual thinking and not even that of other unitheists. In most respects though I believe as I understand other people who call themselves unitheists believe, except possibly Fourier (see below). Rev. King had little or no influence on my writings.

I do not claim to have coined the word unitheism, I came up with it on my own before finding out others had already used it, including Rev. King. There is a French philosopher who may have been one of the first to use it (quote from an early forum posting of mine)--

---

"While it seems to bear little resemblance to Rev. King's or my concept of the word, it seems that an early utopian found a use for "unitheism." He was highly eccentric and coined whatever words he needed for his off-the-wall ideas. (I just found this via a web search)

QUOTE Mazdak taught that the confusion of light and dark, as well as evil in general, derived from individuality and that the ideal condition cannot be achieved until people rid themselves of their individual qualities. Fourier believed that the "fundamental core of the passions" on which the future society will be founded is a passion called "unitheism." This force is not activated in conditions of civilization. The passion directly opposed to it is egoism or one's own "I." "This disgusting inclination has various names in the world of learning: moralists call it egoism; ideologues, the 'I,' a new term which, however, does not introduce anything new but is a useless paraphrase of egoism." (97: p. 105) It should be noted here that egoism in the usual sense is not at all excluded from Fourier's system. He held that the most useful people in the future society would be those who are inclined to enjoyment and who declare duty to be the invention of philosophers. Fourier offers a list of the most important passions for the new order: love of fine food, sensuality, a passion for diversity, competition, self-love. Evidently, "egoism" in the quotation above should be understood in a broader sense and the "I" in a direct sense...

The Socialist Phenomenon

About Charles Fourier--

QUOTE Appearing as they did in the first quarter of the 19th century, it is necessary to identify the Utopian Socialists according to how perceptively they understood and dealt with the massive challenge of industrial society. In this regard, it was CHARLES FOURIER (1772-1837) who seems to have been the most utopian of the Utopian Socialists. What I mean by this is that although Fourier was aware of what was happening in England as a result of the Industrial Revolution, he rejected industrialism wholesale. He despised laissez-faire liberalism and the factory system not because of what effects they might have on human society, but because he believed that industrial society was a passing phase. He saw no need to rectify the dangers inherent in industrialism -- he simply went beyond industrialism by ignoring it. Visionaries can do such things, you know...

The Utopian Socialists: Charles Fourier

---

I have not done any editing yet myself on any unitheism related page. Keep up the good work on Wikipedia :)

I do support having an article on unitheism in Wikipedia and in Wiktionary.

Regards, Warren Farr

warren@unitheist.org

(feel free to post or quote any or all of this page on the unitheism pages)

FACT1

Are you stalking me, GTBacchus? --Shanedidona 04:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Talking?

I'm not sure if you are online, but I was wondering if you might weigh in on the my additions to the Casual sex article (they are currently in revert). More information including several links, and a rather large discussion can be scattered across my talk page, woohookitty's, and on the talk of the safe sex article. Woohookitty insists that I need I scientific "theory", and that the Christian one isn't good enough (I gave the scientific information as well so the user can decide if they believe this theory or not) at least that is how I understand it. I won't rush right now, but take it slow as you said. Chooserr 07:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

After reading your comments, I believe that it would be wise to put up a list like you said talking about the hormones and a note about the "possible" out comes of break up and such, but I was hoping you'd do it because 1) It would probably be a bit more neutral and 2) any edits I make will most certainly be reverted instantly. Chooserr 00:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

RFC reform

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcement already exists... -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

True, but my concerns rest not just with enforcement, but with the serious civility problems inherent in the current process, as well. I'm attempting to compile an WP:AAP-style poll that will discuss multiple issues. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• The poll is now open. Please see Wikipedia:User RFC reform. I've announced it on WP:AN and WP:VP/P. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Humor

I got it, and laughed - I intended the phrasing to suggest that not being me was a bannable offense. :) Phil Sandifer 20:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Conrad-14 year old socialist

I wanted to let you know that the editor hasn't responded to the message I left him, which linked him to the discussion at WP:ANI, here [1] . Since you were instrumental in bringing the issue to the attention of that notice board, would you now suggest that a short editing block may be warrented, under perhaps, WP:Point? I'll watch this space of the appropraiate ANI space for your reply. Regards, Hamster Sandwich 13:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Safe-sex

I'm not going to revert it again, but it is wrong of him to censor me. I am reply to a comment. How would you like it if someone removed one of your statements for no reason. I'm not telling anyone to go to hell. Just stating that I find it odd that one person would join a religion and flatly ignore the doctrine. Furthermore I'm now accused of "vandalism" (although the author of that remark had to put it in appostrophes because he knows he's pushing it to the letter). Chooserr 03:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I gave User:Colle an example of what he is doing...it is the same thing as me reverting JzG's comment about masturbation and 100% of the population doing it. I find that down right offesive, but I can walk by it. Should I go there and revert that edit? Would that be right? What if I get rid of his comments on "Fundamentalists" vs. "Conservatives" is that right. That offends me. Chooserr 03:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

GTBacchus, you are right in some aspects. I guess maybe I could be more tolerant, but just the way he went about it upset me. I like to contribute and not to be censored. I tried talking to him, but I was probably sarcastic. I don't know why he'd be offended though...I just don't.

Huhhhnnnnnn, things are never easy. Chooserr 03:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

RE:Small request

Thank You for your advise. I will do my best to format the articles to a respectable standard. I hope that I have not caused too much of an inconvenience. And thanks for pointing out the minor detail about the main subject going into ALL CAPS to me. --Siva1979^{Talk to me}17:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Lowbrow.com

Please tell me why you keep vandalizing my article. This is very unprofessional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spank fusion (talk • contribs)

I was never advised of being in violation of anything. I understand how Wikipedia works, and it's very frustrating when I return every day to see an article of mine missing with no valid explanation. Thanks for representing Wikipedia in such a terrible way. I'll consider discontinuing use and recommending others to do so as well if this is how Wikipedia truly works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spank fusion (talk • contribs)

You only told me of this once after you had deleted my article several times. Please don't try to make me the bad guy here.

Hmmmm, yeah. I'm just frustrated with this whole thing. My apologies as well. Spank fusion 00:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk: Safe Sex

Could you please help address Chooser's disagreement there? Thanks, --Colle||Talk-- 00:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

A vandal (probably a self-proclaimed arbitrary?) continues deleting templates

Template:User_No_Marxism first created by me on December 31, 2005 (and recreated twice today), has been deleted again by User:MarkSweep. Such a policy is wholly unacceptable for following reasons:

1) he has done it without any vote concerning this template

2) he has carried out specifically POV actions: while Template:User_No_Marxism was deleted, Template:User_anti-imperialist, Template:User_anti-fascism similartily representing negation of political views , still continue existing.

What is more, the whole idea of deleting 'divise and inflammatory' userboxes falls into ridiculous trap -- thinking that way, one should forbid all the communist-socialist userboxes(1), for socialist thinking is definitely 'divisive' (conception of classes in society) and sometimes 'inflammatory' (Class war conception).

Thus, I suggest taking serious steps against this user and restoring templates deleted by that wikihooligan. Especially point two proves that the person we are dealing with rejects Wikipedia:NPOV and acts according to his own (political) beliefs.

I suggest that you to accept my proposal. Constanz - Talk 10:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my vehemence, but you did not comment my argumentation. Do you consider my claims without any basis? were am i mistaken?

Re:Awareness

Thank you for the comment and yes, I was aware of the CE/BCE debate at Wikipedia:Eras, in fact I posted this proposal at the talk page recently and I thought the response was somewhat minimal. I just checked it out though and see you and some others have revived the debate, so I'll be sure to include my comments there as much as possible. I am certainly interested in coming to an agreement concerning the ongoing anno Domini / common era debate and do hope we can do so through discussion. You'll probably see me posting there soon, thanks again for the bump. Darwiner111 05:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm User:PatrickA as well in case you didn't know, I see we debated a bit there on the Era's talk page. Darwiner111 05:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

User:Benjamin Gatti

Reasoning with Ben is pointless. Trust me, I know. This is the man who claimed he wouldn't violate our rules after his arbcom decision but within 6 days had put up that ridiculously POV essay. I've tried reasoning with Ben over and over again but all he cares about is winning his point. He will do absolutely anything to do so. this is the man who used the passive-aggressive tactic on Price-Anderson for 6 months. He'd be cooperative and then he's put up ridiculous stuff like this. And he compares his opponents to Nazis and such. I've tried reasoning with him 10-15 times so I appreciate your motives, but it's not worth it. Save your breath. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh I know. I wasn't blaming you for anything. I just figured I'd save you some grief since it took me months and months to figure out what I told you. :) Didn't want you to have to go through the same crap. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Condoms

Sorry about that I thought that they were talking about the condom, not the medical uses of the material. Chooserr 00:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I did find it kind of strange, but I could see how it might be used for a heart pump, and maybe a catheder. I'll be sure to use the Fact tag from now on. :) Chooserr 00:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of users boxes

I'm not sure exactly where to post a comment about an abuse of admin power, although I was given a link. So I wanted to know how would I be able to file a complaint against User:MarkSweep - on wikipedia of course. Chooserr 20:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Masturbation

GTBacchus, I hate to be accusitory, but I believe the reason for not linking it to either mortal sin, is to censor the information and make the process look peachy and the church as sitting on a high horse looking down on everyone else. The page dosen't hash out the religious point of views very well, because if you look a ways back when I was arguing with User:Endomine you'll see that I was trying to expand the catholicism related part and was shot down being told that it should be about the action, and not about beliefs. This despite the fact that younge children masturbate without being told how. Can you look it over a bit. Chooserr 21:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Conrad

Well, so much for my numeric skills. I saw that you had warned him, but I misread the times of his contributions. I was thinking that you had warned him at 23:23 and that he trolled Chooserr at 23:45, not 22:45. Thanks for pointing this out. I can't say that I'm eager to unblock him, though. (He's pretty much shown that he has no interest in contributing constructively.) What do you think? If you want to unblock him because of my mistake, I won't argue. Yours in power-madness, FreplySpang (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think you and I are on the same wavelength here. Best, FreplySpang (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite

I was wondering if you could tell me if User:Hipocrite's labeling of my reverting Slim Virgin's date change is slander or whatever it is called on wikipedia. I tried to tell him it is a content dispute, but he is still accusing me of vandalism. Chooserr 00:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Favor

I try to keep the information from one version to the other, the only thing is that some of Slim Virgin's additions (other than the date formating) didn't seem right to me. Sorry if I confused you, I'll try to do better in the future.

I did want to know if you'd look over Hipocrite's three revert violation - I posted it on the 3rvt violation page, but no one is paying attention to it. Also could you look over Emergency Contraceptive a lot of information was deleted by both Colle and Hipocrite. Chooserr 01:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I shouldn't have done that - if you haven't fixed it by now I'll go back and do it. Chooserr 01:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand that they are people too and I have done it manually on the Jesus article. I did want to ask though have you looked into hipocrite and the EC article? Chooserr

Pov Warrior

Why are you not doing anything, this is ridiculous.--Colle||Talk-- 02:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just getting frustrated, the guy is taking on several hostile pov edit campaigns at once; inserting things that can only be described as vandalism. This is wasting so much time, from so many editors here. Not to mention it is frustrating and demoralising.--Colle||Talk-- 02:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Chooserr's block again

Hi, GTBacchus. I've been looking at the history of abortion, and I'm pretty sure that the first revert is not a revert at all; it's simply an edit. Chooserr edited the page, and then made three reverts or partial reverts. I thought you might consider unblocking him, although I know that someone with a history of edit warring can be licitly blocked on fewer than four reverts, so I won't interfere if that's what you intended. I just think that it possibly is not what you intended. Cheers, AnnH ^(talk) 02:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm sorry he's gone. I wish you hadn't blocked him, but I do know that it was perfectly appropriate to do so. I'm afraid that people did wind him up and get him over excited. I recall in particular the "mindless incoherent troll" edit summaries. I've always been impressed with your patience and fairness towards him, so I'm particularly sorry that he seems to have gone away with a negative feeling about you as well. Anyway, I'm going to bed now. Will reply to Colle tomorrow. AnnH ^(talk) 04:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

List of monarchs of Kush

No problem. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Chooserr's back again

48 hours past, editwarring the same as before. I'm going to take a break from Wikipedia, it is amazing how frustrating this system can get. Although I wish you would be more decisive, I do admire your patience and ability to remain cool and collected! Thanks, --Colle||Talk-- 09:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Proof that 22 over 7 exceeds π#Question

In what sense is p(x) symmetrical? I find it symmetrical only when large values of |x| are involved, which is expected as then it would approximate x⁶. And BTW, I suppose you meant 4/(1+x⁴) instead of 4*arctan(x). -- Paddu 03:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

re: safe sex

Ack, I'm sorry, way too tired, thanks for correcting my screw-up. Not sure how I missed that. Clearly not paying enough attention. Tyir 23:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Grelling-Nelson Paradox

I don't agree that the first paragraph of the Analysis section successfully resolves the paradox at all. It's nonsense, and it seems to have come in on your edit of 12 July. See talk page for my specific objection Can we please get a source for this "resolution" or else delete it? Thanks. Argyrios 22:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Source for 1965 re-definition of pregnancy

Please take a look at the link, which is well-sourced. The facts are not really in question. It's simply information that rarely is discussed because it does not fit the paradigm of the dominant pro-abortion media and dominant liberal academy. In this case, a medical word was redefined for purely political reasons. 136.215.251.179

Spelling

Thanks. I don't know why I have such a mental block about the spelling of supersedure. Rossami (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Online_shopping_rewards

Hi, I noticed that you de-prodded the Online shopping rewards article. The problem is, now the article is entirely unsourced. I don't think there are going to be any reliable sources on this topic. The closest I could find was this http://www.clickz.com/news/article.php/10321 which at least verifies the existence of the term "online shopping rewards". --Xyzzyplugh 02:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply

The issue is Muslims trying to hide the real history of their religion, nothing more. BlatherAndBlatherscite 01:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Lick

Thanks for the welcome and policy links. I think I have a handle on most of it. Practical usage and getting familiar with Wiki-specific tag deployment may take a while. Very impressive setup you have here.

Yaaaaaaaaargh

I have to vent somewhere.... ;) Pro-Lick removed our comments today (as you are aware) - and then altered a section based on my removed comment. Besides which, our comments on his talk page have been altered/removed (which, although it is his talk page, is still frustrating - it leaves little visible record of complaint). Anyways, I'm done venting now....DonaNobisPacem 06:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - people's talk pages are their own territory, after all, but the abortion page - it's not good to remove comments on a heated debate....Anyways, I know to look for those "source only" sections now in there.DonaNobisPacem 06:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

For taking lick to task. I need to quit now since he is out of control. Goodandevil 18:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

He is at it again on both the abortion and abortion talk pages. He is also removing warnings from his talk page. Good 19:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:rvv

Then what is the acceptable term used to refer to repeated, selective deletions of valid, stable content? -Kyd 05:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Pro-lick

Pro-lick keeps removing my comments from his talk page. My comments are not personal attacks and violate no policy. One is a warning about misbehavior, and the other is advice. Good

LOL. See I'm popular here. I have made it clear to you that your posts are not welcome on my talk page. Simply stop. Guaranteed not to be removed. While you may believe they are OK, or you may just be trolling, they are just your opinion and contribute nothing.--Pro-Lick 16:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

AGM-88 HARM Missile

Hi,

I recently made a revision to the wikipedia article about the AGM-88 Missile and I noticed you changed it back. I had changed to top speed from Mach4 to Mach2, after submitting a paper in my school, NYU, and being notified by my professor that I was mistaken about the speed. You changed it back to Mach4, which makes me think you know something that I don't. I would be very interested to see if you could reference this top speed with a reliable source. It would also help me improve my grade.

Thanks in advance for your help. —This unsigned comment was added by 195.113.142.207 (talk • contribs) .

Hi. Yeah, I remember making that edit. It actually wasn't because I knew that the top speed is Mach 4, or indeed anything about the darn missle. I sort of hoped that if the top speed really was Mach 2 instead of Mach 4, and somebody knew that, they'd come back and say something, and maybe provide a source that we could cite in what is currently an unreferenced article. Do you know of a reference that says anything about the AGM-88's top speed? It sounds like you might have more access to information about missles than I do. I guess we could change it back on your professor's word, but even better would be citing or linking to a reference where that, and other facts in the article, can be verified. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2

Yes, I've been trying different fixes and it seems to have the odd problem, I'm still not exactly sure whats happening, sorry about the bug, I removed the warning message it auto placed on your page, I think I got it in time -- Tawker 05:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Conrad-14 year old socialist

I demand that Conrad-14 year old socialist is unblocked immediatly. Although he is unliked by many administrators, he is an asset to this online encyclopedia. Whenever I come online (which most of the time to look something up because of a personal interest) I will check up on his user talk. He is one of a small group of very interesting characters on the wikipedia website. Unblock him. Let the people read his writings once more. Continue to fight the capitalist enemy.

Josh, leftwing voter 05:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, buddy, you dont have to make any edits at all to be a member of this online encylopedia. Dont ever tell me to have a low profile. I read articles. You seem not to understand the concept of wikipedia. It is okay just to read articles and not edit them. Certainly dont threaten me with a block. You are possibly the most redneck of all administrators. Unblock conrad-14 year old socialist. He has a view. You are in opposition of his view so you want to block him. Who has he offended? Was it serious? Lighten up. Continue to fight the capitalist enemy. Josh, leftwing voter 05:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I dont get it. I wont get it. You have been unfair to users. You are obviously a capitalist. Evidently, you dispise socialists. 'Posting to administrators talk pages is a terrible way to avoid getting noticed.' Im not trying to avoid getting noticed at all. I wanted user:conrad-14 year old socialist unblocked. I have posted on user:conrad-14 year old boy's talk because I wanted him to know that I supported him. Dont talk to me about how long I will last on my talk page. That was your attempt to intimidate. I may take this to another admin. Unblock Conrad-14 year old boy. Let the people read his messages once more. Continue to fight the capitalist enemy. Capisce?

Re: Possible RfC

I've never filed an RfC and, thus, I would also be a first-timer. Goodandevil, who once exhibited similar behavior, including borderline POV edits which were repeatedly reverted even against consensus, also inspired the desire to pursue an RfC — although one never materialized. G&E has since come around at least in part. I advise that we approach Pro-Lick as we approached G&E, first trying to resolve the issue with the user directly, as per WP:RFC, before we resort to a Request for Comment. However, I would certainly support an RfC against any disruptive, difficult user on Abortion, especially if the behavior continues or resumes. -Kyd 06:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm keeping in mind the RfC angle as well; especially now that Pro-Lick is going wild on the ABC hypothesis section/article after doing some preliminary Googling. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I know exactly how you feel. It's frustrating, you feel powerless to act, because everyone else is sitting on their hands. I've had similar experiences with 214 (who produced an RfC which, in my memory, didn't amount to anything; signing it was one of my first acts as an editor), and, more recently, G&E (who never had an RfC although there was talk of one). You're also the first person to describe me as "patient" -- not pursuing an RfC until this point has been less an issue of patience and more one of desiring not to "rock the boat" (i.e. hand-sitting). I daresay I wouldn't be confident enough to go through with it unless I had multiple user support. -Kyd 07:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Post-abortion syndrome (PAS), Abortion & User:Pro-Lick

Looks like Pro-lick is at it again... this time in the PAS article. Whilst I probably agree with his POV... I don't feel that I'm very objective on policing the PAS article. Also, I've realized I prefer to work on articles, as opposed to discussing things/policing.

So, I wonder whether it is better to merge PAS into abortion... it seems to be a lost dog of an article without much scrutiny. At times the pro side comes by... they POVs it. Then there is a flip... and the anti side comes by and POVs it. On the other hand-- I like the PAS article... it is short and to the point. If it were merged into abortion... I wonder whether it would just get lost.

As for Pro-lick-- it looks like they may need more policing. I've noted he was blocked once already (according to his talk). Also, he seemed to be hostile to comments I left him on his talk[2]-- he removed them, which also seems to be a pattern. Nephron 06:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you help

Could you help me to expand the Nederlandse Spoorwegen Museum? Thank -you Booksworm 16:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Robert Hoyt

Sorry for the mixup on the prod; I've run across way too many invalid prods this week, and somehow took the impression you were saying the article violated WP:BIO because it included two different bios. That said, the tech guy is, I think, pretty clearly notable, and I've mentioned some references in the AfD discussion. Monicasdude 21:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Rabid anti-abortionist?

Hi, GTBacchus. I gave you a barnstar some time back because I was impressed at how kind and patient you were with another editor, whom a lot of other admins were blocking almost on sight. I was particularly impressed because I thought you didn't share his POV, so I felt you deserved special praise for your fairness. I have now discovered my mistake! See this, which is referring to this. My dear, rabid anti-abortionist, don't you think it was a bit dishonest of you to accept that barnstar under false pretences? ;-)

On a more serious note, I want to thank you for trying so hard to work for consensus on the abortion page. It's very nice to have a civil opponent. AnnH ♫ 23:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Abortion

I know about fraudulent polls, I'm an honors political science student at Wilfrid Laurier University. I call 'em like I see 'em. News polls are unscientific and unreliable. What would suggest I do to let the public be aware of this? Regards, Onlytalent.

Sources

This is a request that you follow official policy and synthesize the sources as opposed to voting for them, judging them, and arguing for and against them. Consensus is not determining article content. It is made clear on the policy pages that article content standards are WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, and WP:CITE.--Pro-Lick 21:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What are we talking about here, in specific?

Abortion definition.--Pro-Lick 23:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I'm already on record saying that it's not our job to make definitions of our own. Rather, we're supposed to find definitions with reliable sources, sometimes combining them to make for a more comprehensive, balanced and accurate synthesis. The problem here is that some definitions are incomplete, making sense in context but not when plucked out, and other definitions disagree on the specifics of how to phrase the same concept. Obviously, the key issue right now is "death", which some definitions use and others do not. I don't see how voting is particularly helpful, except to gauge the amount of agreement that exists. Alienus 23:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Lick. I haven't once suggested basing article content on any kind of vote. I agree with Alienus' statement above about the purpose of polling - to gauge the amount of agreement that exists, as well as to generate clear statements of reasons. As for asking me not to "judge" or "argue for or against" sources, no, that's silly. Synthesizing sources involves critical analysis. You would do better to use your mind more, instead of asking others to use theirs less. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet you insist upon consensus in the group before changes. Consensus of what? Am I misunderstanding something? Is DonaNobisPacem's insistence along with several others' ongoing repitition that it must be talked and consensus reached referring to their desire to comply with WP:NPOV#Undue weight? And if so, why is there so much undue weight remaining in the article?--Pro-Lick 07:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're arguing that the current version has undue weight given to the pro-life side. Super. You may be right. If you explain why you're right, others will see it too, and agree. Simply insisting over and over again that you're right, in the face of others saying you're not, is one approach, but it turns out not to be very productive. You just keep getting reverted. The secret to not getting reverted is to go ahead and admit that you need consensus to make your changes stick. The current version is one that some group of people actually believe is the best NPOV version. These people actually disagree with you and Alienus that "death" is POV, and they are human beings, with intellectual and moral integrity, who deserve to be listened to, and their ideas carefully considered, just like you.

It's no secret that editors who are willing to work well with others don't get reverted or blocked. You wouldn't know; you haven't tried it yet. I've been trying my damndest to draw you out on the talk page, and force you to unpack your arguments, I've rephrased them for you, and done my best to highlight the strong and weak points, and tried to give you the opportunity to patch up any flaws and present the best reasons behind your edits - and you do have some good reasons. For some reason though, you don't appreciate all the attention and effort I'm putting forth, you make it like pulling teeth, you think I'm your enemy, and you keep falling back on your unsuccessful strategy of making a controversial edit, quoting policy, getting reverted, rinse and repeat... failing to learn from experience.

I've just been mentally preparing a talk page post in which I reduce and summarize the best reasons given on both sides: for and against the word "death". You've never seen your arguments look as good as I'm getting ready to present them. Just possibly, you've generated enough talk page traction for that particular edit to be close to sticking. Maybe not. That, it turns out, is how you make edits stick, and you won't read it on any policy page anywhere.

Today, I've got a lot of non-wiki work to do. I'll try to summarize the state of the death argument when I'm done with my grading, in a day or two, if it still seems worth it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)