User talk:DocEss/archive 1

Animal rights

Please stop editing disruptively. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, in case you're a new editor, this is to let you know about the 3RR rule, which says you may not undo another editor's work, in whole or in part, more than three times in 24 hours, or you may be blocked from editing. Please review WP:3RR carefully. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You have violated the 3RR rule at Animal rights, which means you will be reported and may be blocked from editing. Please take the opportunity to revert yourself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You can't say subjective stuff like "It is an important viewpoint" etc and "Fourth, and most germane here", read WP:NOR. You're writing your opinion which we don't do here. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. And as the above user said, edit warring is against the rules, and you've ignored the 3rr warning. HGB 20:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

All right - if ya don't like the sytax, we can work on it. What would you suggest? I'd be glad to get this done to everyon'es satisfaction. Just stop deleting what others have written.DocEss 20:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You're not being cooperative, the onus is on you to discuss your changes, not revert three editors. When you come back after you're blocked, be sure to discuss first and not edit war. HGB 20:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That statement is assinine. I wrote something and three of you just revert it, deleting it of hand. Six times I said let us discuss. Now discuss!!

Doc, I imagine it feels frustrating from your point of view, but try to understand that the edits you made are not at all consistent with WP policies (which I also urge you to read), and that the three editors who you disagree with have much more experience than you do here. You might think about taking a day or two away from WP, and then coming back and discussing your edits (without re-introducing the deleted section first). If you return and continue to readd your section and keep reverting every time someone removes the section you added, you will be blocked again (for longer), and will become even more frustrated. No one wants this to happen to you. IronDuke 21:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are serious about becoming a Wikipedia editor, the policies to review are Wikipedia:No original research (which your edit violated); Wikipedia:Verifiability (which your edit violated); Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (which your edit arguably violated); and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (which your edit violated). We are here only to report what reliable sources have published in direct relation to the topic at hand. The Catholic Church does not support animal rights, as many religions and other groups don't. We can't include a section on every group in the world that does not support animal rights, so singling the Catholic Church out is POV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like you to elaborate these points for me so I may avoid same with other work. To start, I and others I asked fail to see how what I wrote is considered Original Research; there's nothing original about paraphrasing something as long-published as the Catechism. Moreover, it is clearly verifiable - just follow the links and the Church's position is there - I didn't write the Catechism. It is not at all un-neutral (is that a word?!) - the point I make is that 'Here is a viewpoint which serves to criticise the viewpoint of Animal Rights Activists'; indeed, the view that animals do no have rights at all is a DIRECT, veriafiable, popular, valid and clearly reasoned opinion --- one which many (obviously you dudes) don't agree with, but valid nevertheless. As such, it is a direct critism of the Animal Rights topic and that is the section in the Topic where it was included. I can't imagine any organisation having published a more germane example of this sentence that what the Catechism states and I merely paraprased: "We are here only to report what reliable sources have published in direct relation to the topic at hand." They are verifiable; they published it; it is direct relation to the topic at hand. Please just open your mind for one more try and see if that doesn't ring a bell after a while. DocEss 18:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Doc, thanks very much for your thoughtful remarks. I cannot speak for anyone but myself but I have no problem with the Catholic position, and am in fact pretty pro-Catholic, as these things go. The reason your contribution is OR is this: the Catholic Church has a position on lots of issues. But we don't necessarily insert that position in every available article on which they’ve expressed some opinion. Following that logic, in the Catholic Church article, there is no place where they are criticized by animal rights activists (I think, haven't read it all, but I bet I could come up with some zingers if I researched it on my own). That's because whatever animal rights folks think about Catholics is so, so minor with respect to what others may have to say, pro or con, that we don't include it in that article. Also, many religions have opinions about animal rights. If we included them all, the article would be huge -- would in fact be dwarfed by them. It's only when there's something really, really notable in the way of criticism that we included it in an article. Would conventional Catholic doctrine be opposed to a radical concept of animal rights? Yes, probably. Does it matter to Wikipedia? Not so much. I hope I have made this clearer and not just muddied things. IronDuke

You would have to find an authoritative, secondary source who discussed the Catholic Church's (the primary source's) views on animal rights (AR), in order for us to determine that the Church's views on AR are notable; and we would then normally quote from the secondary source, rather than attempt to interpret the primary-source material ourselves. That is, in part, the point of the NOR policy: to prevent primary-source material being used by Wikipedia editors to advance a particular position. It can take some editing experience before it becomes obvious when primary sources are and aren't acceptable to use. But, as Ironduke says, you'd be stunned to see a critique from the AR movement in an article about the Catholic Church, and similarly many readers would be surprised to see a critique from the Catholic Church on the AR page.

In addition, you didn't even have any primary-source citations (see WP:V) to show that the Catholic Church has a substantial position on AR. You were just surmising, based on what you believe the Church's views on animals are, and based on what you think AR implies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't made this clear, I see. I did not surmise anything about the Catholic Church's view on animal rights; rather, I simple stated their view and referenced same as a primary source. I you want to see their view (which I cut-and-pasted - I did not type it!), so if you would please look on the Vatican's webiste where I got the material in the first place. I am merely paraphrasing it. Look here nearer the bottom of the page: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P8B.HTM I still fail to see how quoting or linking to a source as valid as this is considered original research. Tell me --- if I qoute the Vatican's position on capital punishment in the Capital Punishment topic in Wikepedia would you consider that to be Original Research? DocEss 19:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: if you could get a quote from Pope Benedict, say, denouncing the AR movement as the seat of All that is Evil, we could definitely put that in. But what you have so far is not a criticism of the AR movement, just some religious dogma by the RCC on animals. I don't say that in a derogatory sense, nor am I trying to keep negative stuff out of the AR article. The folks who are already cited in the crit section do a much more convincing and specific job of critiquing AR (which is why we list them and not Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Bahai, etc.). Also, keep in mind that WP doesn't, say, quote from the Bible directly on a given topic. We might, if it was very notable and germane, quote from someone else quoting an interpretation of the Bible (which is how it is in the Capital Punishment article). IronDuke 01:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok IronDuke. Please read below in the Some Help section and think about what he suggests. Does it work for ya? Clarification: this is not a qoute from the Bible. It is a qoute on the Church's stance on the issue. I doubt Pope Benedict needs to write any encyclicals on this issue because this stance, as spelled out in the Catechism, is as old as the hills. Moreover, to call it dogma is not really accurate - there is no real theology behind. The Catechism is just kind of a How-To Operator's Manual of the Human Being and how we should behave. It spells out how we should treat animals - said opinion is hardly supportive of the animal rights movement. Therefore it is a criticism. And you neglected to tell me --- if I qoute the Vatican's position on capital punishment in the Capital Punishment topic in Wikepedia would you consider that to be Original Research?DocEss 19:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on July 31 2006 (UTC) to Animal rights

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 20:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Some help

Dear DocEss, I noticed some problems you have been having with some editors. Rather than start an edit war (and being blocked) the best thing to do is to source all your statements as well as you can, so that it in not solely viewed as your opinion. I think there is a selective view from certain editors that allowing primary sources counts as original research (which is not clear to me that it does, and this view seems to be selectively applied), so ideally you want to find some secondary sources that support your statement. For example, if you want to write about the Catholic Church's view on Animal Rights you might want to quote this source which make many of the points stated in your edits. A simple Google search for "catholic church animal rights" will yield a bunch of other possible sources. Anyway, don't get discouraged by your initial experience here. Hope this helps! Nrets 19:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

NRET, how kind of you to offer your support. I am not confused at all about original research. However, I am confused about why these obviously experienced and intelligent people cannot convince me that quoting the Church's position can be viewed as OR. I am not stubborn, but I am unconvinced and I think they have an obligation to convince me (rather that just stating it) that what I wrote is OR. DocEss 19:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you here, what you quote is pretty straightforward and I wouldn't consider it OR at all. But it seems like an edit war is not the way to win this one, since it is basically you against three. It seems like their only valid criticism here is that you do not provide a link to any, source. So at minimum, I would put a link to the part of the Catechism where it states the role of animals, and even better, show a link (like the one above) to a source that interprets this Catechism in light of the animal rights movement. Otherwise, and this is based on experience, you will not win. Once you provide these sources, there is not much they can argue about, particularily because this is a very relevant critique of the AR movement. Nrets 20:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So here's your original paragraph, I've marked the statements that might need citations and removed some POV conjectures:

On the other hand, the Catholic Church has a concise and clear view on the morality involved in some of these issues. This view is described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church [2]. First, there is a specific enjoinder for the respect for the integrity of creation (as in the Seventh Commandment). Animals are specifically destined for the common good of past, present and future humanity but man’s dominion over them is not absolute. Second, animals are God’s creatures and accordingly must be treated with kindness. Third, animals are entrusted to the stewardship of man. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing and they may be domesticated. Some have argued that by extension, this means that animals may be used for medical and scientific experimentation, a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives [3]. Fourth, it is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. On a related line of enquiry as Chris DeRose’s stance, the Church’s view is that it is unworthy to spend money on animals that should rather go to the relief of human misery. In addition, one can love animals but one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons. This stance stands in stark contrast to most of the views of the animal rights movement’s.

Nrets 20:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me. This stance serves as direct critiscsim to the animal rights claims that animals have rights.DocEss 19:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Some links that might be helpful

[4]

[5]

[6]

Keep your spirit up. There seems to be a pro-PETA cabal among administrators here, aided and abetted by their handmaidens. -- Anon 05:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah...well, there ya go. Links 2 and 3 are exactly on point. What a system! Someone composes an article about a position/belief that an organisation has and THEN and only then is it not considered Original Research. If Wikepedia requires such a process, certainly we must question the veracity of any article herein. I mean --- golly --- anyone could go write an article on any issue and then all of a suddden it's been UN-OR'd, if ya see what I mean. Nonethless, I think that their simple disagreement of this stance is not really what prevents their flexibility and its inclusion (which would be dispicable in its own right) - rather, it is their fear that this criticsm is too dangerous to their beloved animal rights dogma. Read the article - there's a guy qouted in there who would rather save a dog that a retarded child. Man, if I weren't a good Christian I'd suggest I'd rather save a retarded dog than him. But alas, I must pray for him, despite his silliness, becaaue he has a soul and the dog does not. Maybe if I were a canibal he'd go down well with some farva beans and a fine Chianti...... DocEss 19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

peta/radical

It's like I said in my edit summary, you tried to introduce your pov by inserting a weasel word into the article. Be real, PETA is as mainstream as it gets, else it wouldn't have the broad support it has and be classified as a non-profit under the law. Don't try and patronize me by telling me not to start an edit war and then immediately reverting yourself. Jean-Philippe 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

ALF is also radical. Look man -- look up radical. Are you saying that because ALF is so darned radical that PETA is not? That's just silly. Patronize? Stick to the point and provide proper reasoning. Is it that just do you not like that PETA is viewed as radical? Does it bother you in some way to see it as radical? Do you disagrree that it is radical? What is you major malfunction here anyway? The group is radical by definition.DocEss 19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be saying the group is radical because it's radical. That will not suffice. IronDuke 20:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It will suffice - it either is radical or it is not. Shall we now begin an intelluigent discussion about what radical means? And think about that comment above: if broad support and non-profit classification are pre-requisites for being non-radical, perhaps the NAZI party could spring up again under the term mainstream - it sure had braod support, as did the Black Panthers and many other groups I could did up from the dust bin. What an assinine comment you made and what poor reasoning: is specious..20:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)DocEss

This is annoying, could we stick to the PETA talkpage? Jean-Philippe 20:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, have posted there. IronDuke 20:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIV and WP:NPA

Docess, your edits to PETA and Animal rights are becoming disruptive. Edit summaries like "Animals have the right to be tasty" aren't really appropriate; nor is using the Catholic Church as a source; nor is adding your own opinions; nor is calling someone's posts "assinine." Please review our content policies, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't stand the heat on your beloved, radical cause? The troops are massing and the truth will be seen here in Wikipedia.DocEss 20:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, please pass my request to the troops that, before starting the battle for The Truth, they review our content policies. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

We are all well aware of the policies you keep bleating on about. The policies you link in your rejoinders here do not actually apply and serve only as noise to stop the debate. I do not scare easily. Involve yourself in the debate and I will have more respect for you. Now tell me how PETA is not 'radical.'

You see, the Concise Oxford English dictionary that I have here says that radical (in this regard I must assume political, right?) is defined as 'advocating thorough reform; holding extreme political views; revolutionary.' Now how does advocating that nobody eats, wears, rides or tests animals not claissify as thorough reform? Explain it to us all, all non-1 million PETA members, who love a good steak? Go.DocEss 20:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop stating 'Animals have a right to be tasty'. All you are doing is offending editors on the site and as such you will not get a good reception - regardless of whether your edit is good or bad. It is not helpful to wikipedia to egg people on.-Localzuk ^(talk) 20:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Egg people on! Egg? I hope you can see the irony there through your tears, Mr. Sensitive. I will try not to Tofu people on in the future if the bullies start debating in good faith and on point. Ah, levity - that was as delicious as caviar. DocEss 21:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This is your final warning. Please remain civil. 'through your tears, Mr. Sensitive' is uncivil. It is namecalling and pointless. If you persist with your incivility, you will be reported for it. Also, if you have any evidence of bullying, I would suggest you visit one of the many different notice boards and request something be done about it.

Please remember that the way to fight against someone breaking a rule is not to break a rule yourself.-Localzuk ^(talk) 14:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Final warning? Give me a break. The only thing worse than an overly sensitive wimp is one who pontificates at the same time. Have you no sense of humour at all? That egg thing made me laugh. Look, it is my position the animals do not have any rights at all - billions of people share that position. It is perfectly legimitimate to quip that ANIMALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE TASTY. OOOO --- I guess the haggis is in the fire now!DocEss 17:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! -Localzuk ^(talk) 13:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah...ok. Anything else? Please try to remain logical.DocEss 17:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Doc, It's getting hard to support you (not that you need my help anyway) if you keep on insulting the other editors. If you really disagree with their stance or their edits, you can make your corrections to the articles following the WP guidelines. But if you insult them personally, then your valid points will never see the light. Nrets 18:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not seeking support; I am seeking the truth. I beleiev thast valid points always see the light, irrespective of the source. Perhaps everyone should divorce himself from emotion and debate the principles that are germane to the issue.DocEss 18:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

math/maths

In British English we say "maths" not "math" (I think because "mathematics" is plural), which is why I have reverted your edit to my user page. Francis Davey 15:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ya, but it ain't cool to say 'maths'; it's a coloquial phrase and it IS "You do the math." There's no regional difference in the phrase and saying it differently just makes ya sound like a tool. It's like "I can't get no satisfaction" - just leave it alone, it does not need corection.DocEss 17:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Proposal

Hi, I am posting this message to everyone who has edited on animal rights or animal welfare related articles in the last couple of months. I have just created a proposal for a WikiProject to help co-ordinate editors on the many articles under the mentioned subjects. If you would like to find out about it or show your support for such a project, please visit User:Localzuk/Animal Rights Proposal and Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects#WikiProject Animal Rights and Welfare. Cheers, Localzuk ^(talk) 10:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Wk

Macbeth (1971 film)

Thanks for the nice comments on my article for Polanski's Macbeth. I have also written another (quite long) article, Fictional portrayals of psychopaths which I am most proud of! I've also written articles on Michael Radford's Nineteen Eighty-Four as well as Noah Cross and "Suffer Little Children". Cheers! --Jaiwills

Animal rights

Could you please look at Talk:Animal_rights#Unclear_paragraph and Talk:People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#Holocaust_on_your_Plate_heading? Farnsworth J 03:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked, Farnsworth. Now what? DocEss 17:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

--Anthony.bradbury 23:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)== IGTN ==

Hi there; yes, I liked the photos, thank you. p.s. love the userpage.--Anthony.bradbury 19:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi; no, thay are absolutely not interchangeable terms, although they relate intimately to each other. Avulsion, which may be complete or partial (partial avulsion being alternatively named wedge resection) is the physical removal of all or part of the nail. Ablation is inhibition of the nail bed by cauterisation with some caustic chemical to prevent the nail, or the edge of the nail, from regrowing. Phenolisation is ablation using concentrated phenol as the caustic agent. And matrixectomy, which is a term only used on your side of the Atlantic, is the physical exision of the nail bed by surgery, which in the UK is called Zadek's procedure. I guess surgery is not your field? Incidentally, there is a trans-Atlantic difference in the way that the local anaesthetic is administered. I insert Lidocaine into the base of the toe, at the level of the metatarso-phalangeal joint, around the toe so as to infiltrate around the main digital nerves and also the dorsal nerves in the 10% or of people in whom these exist. In the US the injection is made along the side of the nail, which I regard as barbaric in an inflamed toe.--Anthony.bradbury 23:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Animal rights

Hi there; I take a simple, and it seems to me obvious viewpoint; however, I think that no-one else does. I take the view that no animal, and for that matter no human, has any natural rights of any kind. The concept of rights is, in my view, a null concept. does a man drowning at sea has a "right" to life? Or a man in a crashing aeroplane? Does an antelope being killed by a leopard? And if it does, what of the rights of the leopard? No; the only rights that we, or any other animal have, are the rights which are codified in the law of whatever country we may happen to live in (UK me}. And that's it. If our government chooses to give animals legal rights, then they have them. If it doesn't, they don't. Having said that, the issue is so emotive, and the attitudes of the bunny-lovers so fixed, that I prefer not to get involved in what is guaranteed to be a wholly non-productive discussion. this is not cowardly, I just have better things to do. You are absolutely not going to change anyone's mind on this topic. But good luck, and best wishes.--Anthony.bradbury 21:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sensible stance. Your view point is not atypical in any respect - in fact, 1 biilion people at least share the view. So just for your interest and to prove your stance is right on the money, here's what the Vatican says about animals' "rights": they don't have any at all! We humans have responsibilites, though: see http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P8B.HTM under Respect for the Integrity of Creation. Notice that the PETA-phyles disagree but won't allow dissent. And hey - I too am a bunny lover - the degree of love depends entirely upon the chef and my choice of wine. Bon Chance DocEss 21:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yo, just wanted to drop in and wish you good luck with the animal rights articles. We'll find a way to even it out a little. Keep it up.--C civiero 01:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. I also look to the Vatican for guidance. On your other point, claret is usual with rabbit; but any red wine will do.--Anthony.bradbury 18:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Please read through Wikipedia:Civility. Name-calling is pointless and poisonous to our community, and can result in blocking. — Omegatron 20:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I guess Wikipedia:No personal attacks is more appropriate. Read both, please. — Omegatron 20:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Both of those article are very interesting. But so what?DocEss 16:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting? — Omegatron 23:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Animal Rights

Hi there; I have read through your talk page, and those of several other editors. I recognise that you have been a Wikipedian longer than I have, though I will bet that I outrank you in years; I seem to be older than everybody on Wiki. I am going to give you some wholly gratuitous and unsolicited advice, and if you choose to tell me to **** off I will not take offence. My advice: back off. You will not convince anyone, and will just make enemies. What's the point?--Anthony.bradbury 21:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Truth is the point. Is there ever any other goal? Thanks for the advice; you are very kind.DocEss 21:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You know the truth, and I know the truth, and we share our perception of it. As does the Vatican. But I say again, you will convince nobody. You are a fellow professional and I see no point in your getting hurt.--Anthony.bradbury 23:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Good advice Anthony.bradbury, although I do encourage all editors to work with the community - as Crum375 said on the peta page, work brick by brick. Also remember that Wikipedia is not about Truth, it is about verifiability.-Localzuk ^(talk) 06:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

How could one verify a falsehood? If something is about verifiability, it is about truth. Encyclopoediuas are about truth - be sensible.DocEss 16:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry DocEss but your response leads me to believe that you don't understand how wikipedia works. If something can be cited - making sure it is a reliable and verifiable source then it is fine. If any of those criteria aren't met then, even if it is the truth, it cannot be used. It is easy to verify a falsehood, however, as the internet is a place full of such things - however, that is where reliable sources and we come in. We have to be vigilant in trying to prevent low quality information, or unsourced information from being inserted. This can lead to problems, but we have plenty of ways of dealing with them as they arrive - such as discussing things on talk pages (bearing in mind to maintain a level of professional detatchment and not taking things personally), asking for peer reviews, etc...-Localzuk ^(talk) 16:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I do understand. I am not talking about citing sources (which you are) as "verifiability". I was speaking extemporaneously and outside the jargon of any particular mileu, a mindset you might find productive if you could step outside your Wiki-styled cage. Encylopoedias ARE about truth - plain and simple. Whatever...let us move on from these debates and pursue the point at hand: we must improve the PETA and animal rights articles because they suffer from several problems.DocEss 18:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. What I am about to do is print the article off, and go through it sentence by sentence and write down what I think needs doing. I have done this in the past on several articles and it has worked very well and the articles have improved tremendously. How about doing this yourself? It would give us a better picture of what you think is wrong and why.-Localzuk ^(talk) 19:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thuper idee-er. Keep in mind - I am merely a shepherd.DocEss 19:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You have been warned many times!

Please refrain from making personal attacks such as those you have recently made on SlimVirgin's talk page. It is not acceptable under any circumstances. Why do you persist in making such comments?-Localzuk ^(talk) 20:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack at all! It is a justified observation that I hope (in vain?) SlimVirgin will take to heart and behave more constructively. I admire much of what she does here; but I rail against her stubborness. Anyway: what are you? her mother? DocEss 20:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Stating You demonstrate bias, stubbornness, haughtiness and a pontificating persona. and Smarten Up. is a personal attack. You are attacking a person rather than content that has been posted. This is my final warning on this issue. Any further such attacks will be reported to WP:PAIN. (Consider this a warning of npa3).

Also, regarding your rather uncivil comment about being her mother. Wikipedia is a community, it is ran by its members and as such we all look out for one another and make sure things are running smoothly. If this didn't happen, the site would not be half as useful as it is.-Localzuk ^(talk) 20:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yawn. So you're not her mother?DocEss 20:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the joys of someone trying to get a reaction. I am leaving it at this but as I said this is your last warning. -Localzuk ^(talk) 20:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The only reaction I'm trying to get is objectivity - SV is standing in the way of it and she does not need to. She's far too intelligent to resort to gate-keeping of her viewpoint. I will not stop pulling the feathers until the chicken is fully plucked and the AR/PETA articles are written objectively, Mom. DocEss 20:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Redmile.ca

I am removing the link becuase it is irrelevent to the article. The website exists to promote buisnesses on 17th Avenue, and offers virtually no content related to the Flames, or the Red Mile parties of 2004 or 2006. The website is merely attempting to leetch off the notoriety of the name "Red Mile", and basically admits as much in the FAQ section. The bluemile.ca website is definitely related to the Oilers run, and the partying and violence that occurred. It is relevent to the content.

I have again removed the link, and would appreciate it if you did not reinsert it. If anything, that website belongs on the article for the Beltline, not for the Red Mile. Resolute 23:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The Red Mile is not specifically related to the Flames. It is also related to the city's football team, the Stampeders, and to the city's annual Calgary Stampede. Evenn the World Cup of Football found enthusiasm along that street in 2006. Moreover, it is actually now a destination in its own right. In a similar line of reasoning, Electric Avenue was an immensely popular long after the Flames' 1986 Cup run and was immortalized by that name. The Red Mile is the Red Mile - just because it was created by the Flames furour does not mean it goes away when the Flames aren't playing. Heck - I believe cab drivers in other cities have even heard of the Red Mile. The Red Mile.ca website shows inumerable photos of partying during the Flames' runs to the Cup as well as many other useful things related to the destination. I also believe the name has been trademarked by the website's owner --- calling their efforts "leetching" (mispelled) is not really a fair characterisation anyway. I think the webiste should be included: when someone reads the Wiki article, he's certainly going to go search for Red Mile on the web, find the link, then visit the site - let's just include the link to ease the day for Wiki users, ok?DocEss 18:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

PETA & Wikiproject:Animal rights

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Rockpocket 23:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Be quiet. I'm not attacking any persons; I am attacking (and justifiably so) persons' behaviour. Now get focussed on the task at hand at stop whining like a little school girl who's being teased by those wascally boyths....DocEss 17:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. Rockpocket 17:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Shhhhsh....Get focussed on writing proper AR/PETA articles. DocEss 17:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Shell ^babelfish 08:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I attacked no-one. I never will. But I will never stop attacking bias and skewness. DocEss 17:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Please be cooperative. If you don't, you will be banned and the articles will be written without your input. We need your help. — Omegatron 17:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Superglue and water?

Well, superglue polymerises using nucleophiles as the initiator, the hydroxyl ion is a pretty common environemental nucleophile, I'm sure there are others but if the monomer is left on its own it's not likely to do much in the way of polymerisation.

Ah...ok. But I really just wanted to know in a yes/no/small-elaboration fashion whether superglue functions as a glue in an environment that is devoid of water. I cannot gleen the answer from your response. Thanks.DocEss 17:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't talk to many people about the subject these days who don't know as much, if not more, then I do. /embarassed. The setting of the glue is a reaction that, once started continues until all the reagents (the stuff in the tube) are either reacted or unable to react for one reason or another. In this case the reaction needs something else that isn't really a reagent to start it off, an initiator. From what I know this can be any nucleophile; not necessarily H+ from H₃O+. So yes, devoid of water is a yes.GreatMizuti 12:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I ain't no chemist. It's just that I saw I science-guy on TV claiming that glueing a ceramic pot with superglue was a tough task becassue it rarely makes a solid bond. Indeed, the demonstration showed that the glue made a poor bond; then, he wetted the ceramic pieces and lo-and-behold there was bondage! He even glued his wet finger to the deal. He started to scream that he wanted OUT OF BONDAGE! "Oh mighty Glue-o! Let My finger go!" And lo, with a small amount of rubbing alcohol his finger was freed and all the people did rejoice.DocEss 19:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the rubbing alcohol containes iso-propyl alcohol, a reasonably polarorganic solvent which interstices between the polymer chains (the set glue) weaking the tensile strength of the material. GreatMizuti 07:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Semitic

The meaning of the term semitic is actually exactly as it is described in that article's lead. It is correctly describes the slightly more specific meaning associated with the term anti-Semitic. These two related but distinct meaning often cause confusion. --Ben Houston 18:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Right - I'm confused. When the press describes a group as anti-Semitic, should I take it to mean only anti-Jewish? I heard someone describing an incident involving an Arab cab driver claiming the passengers demonstrated anti-Semitic behaviour and it threw me for a loop. What are we to do? Should the article perhaps contain something that describes the current use of the term to mean (notwithstanding the eytomolgy of 'Semite') only 'Jewish'?DocEss 18:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, its a complex topic. The large majority of the time the term anti-Semitic is used it is referring to anti-Jewish sentiment or behavior. It can be used, although it is a less accepted meaning, to refer to anti-Arab behavior. (Although the more common terms are anti-Arabism or Islamophobia in reference to the dominant religion.) Also, one should realize being Arab does not rule out being Jewish -- see: Mizrahi Jews. I am not sure that one has to explain that the term anti-Semitism is sometimes misused from its current meaning -- people misuse all types of words but that doesn't make those misuses worthy of including in an encyclopedia. --Ben Houston 18:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I'll continue to take Semitic to mean Jewish and require other uses to be fully defined by their authors. (I know some Arabs are Jews; the cab driver was not.) I wonder - it's not a matter of misuse, per se; is it not more a matter of ambiguousness?. Anyway, if you don't think a distinction should be made...well, I'll just carry on as before.DocEss 18:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Tactics

Hi there; you can tell me to **** off, or just ignore me and delete this comment. As you wish.

I am fairly sure that you live in the USA. You may correct me. We have commented in the past about animal rights, and have, I think, a fairly close agreement on principles. But clearly not on tactics. I believe that there is a phrase on the western side of the Atlantic which says "you can't fight city hall", and in wikipedia you clearly can't, because you get jumped on. And blocked. And that does not help your cause - it just labels you as a troublemaker. I am not an admin, and hold no position of authority in wiki; I am just a fellow professional who does not like to see a colleague in difficulty. If you get yourself permanently banned, which they can do, then you can have no wiki voice in anything thereafter (short of arranging a new ISP, which is tedious). Attacks on points of view are seen within wiki, rightly or wrongly, as attacks on their authors, and this is not popular. As you know, your views and mine are held by a large number of people; if by immoderation your voice is stifled, what have you achieved?--Anthony.bradbury 15:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You're a good man. I shall incorporate your sound advice into my approach. I shall never stop attacking bias, though. DocEss 16:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

My Talkpage

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Rockpocket 17:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? All I said was that nobody likes a snitch. Is that statement not true?DocEss 17:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop wikilawyering, we both know exactly what you were referring to [7]. On your return from your second block, your very first edit is to implicitly refer to the reporting editor as a "snitch". Please consider that this type of behaviour is why you were blocked in the first place and if you continue you will be reported again, and your block will be longer, if not indefinate. Thank you. Rockpocket 17:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I truly wish you'd be quiet.DocEss 18:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to explain

Do you want to explain this comment [8]? -- Samir धर्म 23:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I must say that I take offense to your comments [[9] [10] and the reversion of an administrative decision [11]. You also don't seem to understand what a talk page is used for -- to constructively build an article, not rant your anti-religious sentiment. Your comments are not conducive to fair editing here, and I've blocked you for disruption. You may appeal with the unblock template if you like -- Samir धर्म 23:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not wish to appeal; these admisnistrative trivialities are banal to me. But know this: I have no anti-religious sentiment in me whatsoever; on the contrary, I have nothing but utmost respect for other religions (as is required of me by my faith) and I expect and demand the same from you and your faith, whatever that may be. You should realise that I have an incurable addiction for the truth and a powerful disdain for hypocrisy, championing truth with every breath until it is unemcumbered and attacking hypocrisy vigourously until its ugliness is fully exposed.

I suggest --- re-iterate --- that many (like you here, clearly) take offence too easily. Why is that? Please answer that - I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm trying to understand my brothers and sisters, all of whom I love equally. Do tell me - why so sensitive? Why react with emotion to everthing perveived as a slight or insult? Is hyper-reaction a productive policy? Does this type of fanatacism get us closer to mutual understanding? Intelligent and civil discussion would be better, ja?

Even so, is my sugestion of a list of recent events that have sparked muslum anger not uselful subject matter? DocEss 19:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

His Holiness

DocEss, I have tried on several occasions to advise you; without, clearly, much effect. We agree on so many things; animal rights and Muslim oversensitivity among them. Why can you not understand that, when you post an article or a communication in a talk page, that it is not only what you say but how you say it? (Benedict XVI could possibly heed the same advice, which I say as a Catholic). You are carrying a flag here which many of us would gladly support, but if you get blocked for percieved immoderate behaviour, over which I have no control, you achieve nothing and help nobody. As a colleague I ask you - please stay within the rules.--Anthony.bradbury 14:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Woe is me. I'll live.DocEss 19:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, have it your way. But I really was trying to help.--Anthony.bradbury 12:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am grateful for your assistance. Thank you.DocEss 17:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

discussion moved from Pope page

You're welcome. I wonder, though, whether we should spell it "defence" as it is in English or should we continue to spell it American, with an 's'.DocEss 19:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC) + aside discussion moved to DocEss page

Makes no difference to me. There might be a wikipolicy on that distinction, but I don't know of it. If there is, and the American spelling violated it, someone will surely point that out and fix it soon, so I for one will not worry about it.

The common policy on this is what you use the type of english from the country that the article is about. For example, the article on Steve Irwin uses the australian dialect. dposse 19:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I see. So we should re-write the article in Latin, since the Pope resides in Vatican City whose official language is Latin. Silly. I think what you mean is that we can spell it either way because both spellings are legitimate. [I say this despite my over-wheleming desire to Anglicize the American language to proper Queen's English.] Move on.DocEss 19:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

American English is closer to the real stuff than the Queen's. (Thank God she lets us use it.)--Shtove 17:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I said english dialect. You are the one being silly. I don't have the official policy on hand, but if you look at it, you'd see that i'm right. dposse 20:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well then...if we, in your words, "use the type of english from the country that the article is about..." then which should we use?DocEss 20:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I was speaking about wikipedias policy in general terms. This article is about no one country, so use what we have now. dposse 20:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what article you're talking about, but the policy on spelling dialects is at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. — Omegatron 20:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Omegra - you're watching me. I feel so flattered and a tiny bit stimulated. Anyway, we're trying to decide what spelling is apporriate for the article about the Pope's Islummy controversy: defense (as an American) or defence (as in English). Opinion? DocEss 21:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You're just on my watchlist still from the above conversations.

I dunno, man. The local languages are Latin and Italian. If the Vatican ever publishes anything in English, go with that dialect. Otherwise go with the first contributor, who appears to be... Croatian. Oh my. — Omegatron 02:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just glad to be able to demonstrate the folly of instantly quoting some Wiki policy every time some kind of discrepancy arises. I ask how we should spell 'defence' and some casual observer (in this case dposse) comes along and bleats out his two cents, "...what you use the type of english from the country that the article is about...' without any regard for thinking about what he wrote. I find that illuminating because this type of response happens so often here in Wiki that we tend to get distracted with bureaucracy and trivial details. Ya think? Anyway, it's like I said: in real human life (which is the 'policy' we follow most of the time) one can spell defence either way.DocEss 18:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no folly in guidelines that focus editing on the content of articles while diverting attention away from pointless fights over trivial spelling and usage differences.

The only problem is every new user who comes along and thinks that the policies are stupid, bureaucratic, or otherwise beneath them and crap up our process by ignoring them. But then we ban them, so it's not really a problem after all... — Omegatron 01:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Pope

Hi! Sorry to meet you like that, but the message you've left me indicating vandalism, I believe you've left it for the wrong person. Please go back and check out my edits for yourself!DBaba 02:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I remember analysing two versions of the page and removing one word that a vandal had included. When I saved the page I remember that someone else had instantly done the same (my reversion is not even listed now - weird). At the top of one of these pages I saw your name. Now I see that the bad guy was not you, it was the guy who edited instantly after you, User:Nate14. I apologise profusely for having implied you are a vandal. Totally sorry. DocEss 16:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

PC

Indeed. -Localzuk^(talk) 18:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"Manuel II Paleologus"

Dear DocEss,

Thanks for your comments on my sentences. It is a waste time for me to attend like a discussions. I know that almost all religions use power (including rock/sword/gun)on nonmembers/paganists. Christians and Muslims also. How some Turcs accept islam and some others(Magyars,Bulgars,Fins) Christianity?-it is a good example-. I know the story/history. But, here, in Pope's speech something is wrong. It is not Popes's business to make reform in islam (which is needed). This words guide the pure christian people against to Muslim.To speak about fundalism is ok but to speak about another religion is another matter. Pope has no right with that spech as a religion lider or a president. I believe there will be some reform in islam, but muslim will do it not anybody. Regards. Mustafa Akalp 22:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, what an interesting yet poorly thought out comment. Know this: it is my right (and even duty) to speak about anything I like, whenever I like, to whomever I like. It is also your right. It is also the Pope's right. If he wants to comment on Islam, he may do so at any time. So can I. So can you. But I'll tell you, his comments are worth infinitely more than yours or mine; he, at least, is an expert in theology.DocEss 22:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you not believe that with his power comes a certain level of responsibility? Does he not have to be careful what he says else his behaviour be seen to tar all Roman Catholics with the same brush? Also, his behaviour can be taken to incite people depending on what he says (I don't know in this case specifically, I am talking more generally about people, such as the Pope, in positions of power).-Localzuk^(talk) 17:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that a rhetorical question? (It had better be!) Of course power comes with responsibility; and, yes, he (and I and you) does have to be careful with what he says. In this case, he was indeed careful with what he said; in fact, he was craftily careful - and that's what got everybody all in a tizzy. The only way to avoid offending radicals or fundamentalists in any over-sensitive orgainisation (whether it be Islam, PETA, neo-Nazis, eco-terrorists, flat-earth people, nerds, fat people who say they're just big-boned) is to never say anything critical, care in speech notwithstanding. A policy of saying nothing in today's international climate is completely irresponsible. I not only defend the Pope's (or mine or your) right to issue opinions on things (Islam included), I require that he does. I require that all religious leaders declare and compare theology, for they are the experts. I demand that they point out the benefits and failings of their own and the other religions. I require that everyone listens to everyone else in matters of theology. I require that discourse be peaceful and objective; I require violence to be abhored. And for now, I require that all the raw nerves get scraped so hard that they become desensitized and we can begin moving in a forward direction towards peace and love. Reason and civil discourse is the only method that will work in the long run, but for now we shall just have to go on inciting reactions until the baby is no longer teasable and grows up. DocEss 18:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. What do you care? Not that I mind debating with someone as objective as you.

Yes, it was a rhetorical question. With regards to the 'nerves scraped so hard' bit. There is a major problem with this and that is that you would be fighting against human nature and the cultures around the world. I agree it has to be done, but it can't be done suddenly. It has to be a progressive thing.

Also, is the comment about my objectivity a swipe or not? I can never really tell with text online...-Localzuk^(talk) 18:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

We've been arguing about religion for...I don't know....5000 years or something. 'Suddenly' is hardly an applicable word. Let us take the Irish problem as a poignant example. Catholics and Protestants murdering each other for decades over which religion is the better one. How much of the bloodshed can we say ended up as part of the solution? None, I would suggest. Where I live (not Belfast, whew!), I have seen Catholic and Protestant friends who bicker and tease and spat and fight and laugh and cry - and then have a beer together. But in Belfast, that just ain't gunna happen - say one thing like "Idolotor!" or "Heathen" and eight people will die durtig a Sunday parade. Why? Oversensitivity. We must desensitise, a process that inherently goes against human nature, if we are to discuss, and to discuss we must. Look at thoeolgy this way: our whole existence is a struggle against our human nature, is it not? DocEss 18:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. It was a half-joking swipe, craftily constructed so as to only half-tease you.

removed vandalism

Warning

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars.

This is regarting your behaviour on Talk:Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy in general, and [12] and [13] in particular. Azate 00:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not uncivil. Try to divorce yourself from emotion and stick to the point.DocEss 18:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please be nice

I just came to your talk-page because I thought you really appeared to be arrogant and mean-spirited in several of your contributions, especially on the pope controversy talk page, without any reason. I mean, a bit of attitude is fine, but you just go way, way too far. You seem to think that by shouting louder than anybody else, you can persuade them to adopt your opinion, with no rational thought required. Please don't do that, it is disrespectful and a waste of your time. 4.159.11.68 07:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Anonimity is a coward's cloak. Neverthless, I'm hardly arrogant, I'm never mean-spirited and I never raise my voice. Rational thought is welcome, necessary, required and, above all, the only thing I will accept. I suggest we all stow our emotions in the over-head compartment for our safety and enjoyment on this flight.DocEss 19:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

DocEss, I have tried on several occasions to give you advice, which you have essentially wholly ignored. Your prerogative. You have a number of very sound ideas, which you insist on promulgating in a way which I am certain you expect will anoy people who might otherwise be supportive. Why do you do this?

I have believed that you are a sensible, sincere and well-meaning professional. Are you really determined to prove me wrong?--Anthony.bradbury 20:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I am here to separate the wheat from the chaff. Thank you for your compliment.DocEss 20:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Think of me as the sand grain in the oyster.DocEss 20:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

With respect, DocEss, you may well consider your manner and tone of communication perfectly reasonable. However, it is becoming ever more clear that it is neither welcome, nor considered acceptable by your fellow Wikipedians. You can continue to justify yourself all you want, but unless you begin to show some respect to how the community, not you, interpret WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA in the end all is going to happen is you are going to be blocked. That would be unfortunate, as you clearly have the potential to be a useful contributor. However, as i have witnessed happen again and again, certain editors feel they are right and the community is wrong, and you are well on your way towards that.

I expect (though i hope i'm wrong) you will produce another indignant or sarcastic reply to this, noting your righteous mission to expose hypocrasy and bias etc, but that will simply reinforce my point. Please take the constructive advice of a number of editors who have taken the time to contact you. If you don't i will simply be a matter of time until the patience of the community wears thin. Rockpocket 22:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You're an interesting person too, Rocket. You are hard to get a handle on: your knowledge, skills and intelligence are all on different levels.DocEss 15:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

NPA warning

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Npa warning, for the record. That's for [14] and [15] and [16], including your irritating habit to USE ALL CAPS to give people orders to MOVE ON, and there's more where these came from. Way too much of your contributions consists of sniping at others. I'm starting to get really annoyed. You are also not supposed to ask people to not contribute to WP. Oh, and "are you thick"[17] is not one of the accepted ways to address other editors. Azate 23:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I attacked no one; I attacked the approach (as I should). Everyone's contributions are welcome, especially yours, Azate. I'm only attempting to maintain focus. Can we move on now?DocEss 15:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In the editor's defence I would ask this: Exactly how is saying something once a habit? I also think that a few pope-apologists and anti-Islamists need to stop being hot house flowers and learn to tell the difference between a witty barb and a personal attack. I firmly believe the editor was doing the right thing. GreatMizuti 14:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC) (btw, not for nothing, but telling someone to watch their tongue, Azate, is a thinly veiled threat, you would do well to remember that. [see what I mean?])

Azate is sure sensitive; I think maybe he doesn't take direction well. I'm sure he'll be OK if he just stays on point.DocEss 15:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk page policy

Deleting legitimate comments from your talk page is against policy. See Template:wr0 and Template:wr for starters. --Neurophyre^(talk) 22:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah - I thought so. This guy deletes everything you write instantly. User:Ttiotsw Secondly, my page is long and I think I could archive it (but just don't know how.) I, of course, don't want to delete anything, just make the page more navigable. thanks tons.DocEss 22:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The policies mentioned only apply to removing warnings. Other comments e.g. about the person or related persons e.g. parents or beliefs or mental state or health etc then that's much more personal and can legitimately be removed especially when the matter has been mentioned in no uncertain terms that it is closed. As everyone knows it's in the history. Even the wikipage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page#Etiquette mentions that some people delete comments after they have replied to them. I think I have replied to every one of the comments. I suspect that if things got so perverse to go to dispute resolution then there would be enough holes in the user page policies to smack any size peg into. So basically whenever YOU write anything then I'll reply and delete it. Browse the history. Again again again this matter is closed. Ttiotsw 23:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You sure put a lot of energy into something so inconsequential.DocEss 19:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi DocESS, noticed you want to know how to archive. The easiest way is to simply copy what you want to archive, go to a subpage of this one such as User talk:DocEss/archive 1 and paste it there, adding {{talkarchive}} at the top. Then add a link at the top of this page to that page such as is done on the animal rights related articles. Hope this helps. -Localzuk^(talk) 20:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Loco: Thanks for the help. But I don't think I'm doing it right. I pasted everything to User talk:DocEss/archive 1 but there are no titles, formatting or table of contents and the data remains on the original talk page. Did I mess it up?DocEss 20:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I did it. I feel pretty self0satisfied now - never felt like this before. Ha! Thanks tons for your help, Localzuk

You're welcome. I hate long talk pages... -Localzuk^(talk) 20:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You have been warned *many* times. This is truly your last warning.

This is your last warning. The next time you make a personal attack, as you did at Talk:Muhammad‎, you will be blocked for disruption. -Patstuart 19:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Explain.DocEss 19:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with a lot of what you had to say. I wish more people were open about the true history of religious things, like the fact that Muhammad was violent. But the way you attack other people and their faiths in talk pages is totally unacceptable and uncalled for. If I think Muhammad had a violent tendancy, I say so in a civil manner; and I certainly don't attack people for their opinions. It's against Wiki policy, and it's just not nice. -Patstuart

Respectfully, I think you've got it all confused. I don't believe I argued that Mohamamed was violent. I don't think I attacked anyone's religion. The link you gave me above doesn't work, so please highlight my folly. Hey - I'm not interested in attacking religions; I am interested in discussing them.DocEss 19:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Link:[18]. A clear ad hominem attack. Disagree with people, don't attack them. -Patstuart 19:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I truly don't understand: what was ad hominum about what I wrote? Please explain.DocEss 19:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing, in context. Perhaps you honestly don't understand, but others have warned you too. It means be nice, assume good faith, and don't attack others. Here's a sample:

" Leave your drivel here where it should be!"

"your instant-theologian's characterisations of the major world religions."

"*He chose us now, you losers, join or be p0wned" -Patstuart 19:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I knew it! I didn't write that anti-religious material, he did. He wrote that religious stuff in response to my question. You see, my question was on the Article's talk page. He responded on My talk page. I moved to where it should be and he kept putting it back. I succumbed to frustartion and called his answer drivel (and maybe I shouldn't have) but he wrote the rest. Here it is (and you can look at the history):

I wrote (on the Mohammud talk page, and a tad sarcastically I regret):

• We are indeed fortunate to have such an esteemed theologian as you around. What a resource! I, for one will take full advantage so that I may learn. Can we start at the top? Could you please edamukate me on the central message of each of these major religions (i.e., Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism)? One word or phrase for each is all I can comprehend, so be brief if you please. Thanks tons.DocEss 18:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

He responded (as a new section on My page, mind you):

• ==per your request==

your instant-theologian's characterisations of the major world religions.

• don't make Him any more angry!
• He chose us now, you losers, join or be p0wned
• don't listen to these guys, He just called us. We are not sure what he meant though.
•  
• it's all very complicated, but if you repeat these three syllables for the next 70,000 years, you'll be fine.
• woot, we have a Book too now dab (ᛏ) 18:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

DocEss 20:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Please read through Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility (again) during your time off. — Omegatron 20:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

<<unblock|I think you've got it all wrong here. Please read above. I didn't attack anyone.>> I think you've got it all wrong here. Please read above. I didn't attack anyone.DocEss 20:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c6/Block_infobox.png

Sarcasm isn't measured in "tads", but why the block?--Shtove 22:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've looked upon the history of the converstaion, and indeed, you did not originally write parts of that comment. However, you did copy them over to the main Mohammad page (which wasn't necessary), and didn't do a very good job letting us know that you were copying them over, so that any editor, without doing a lot of research, would never have known the difference. But the first part of the comments was yours. From now on, if the other guy keeps on adding ad hominem attacks, you can ask an admin for help. -Patstuart 23:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well...thanks for recognising you had the worng guy, officer. The whole conversation was on that Mohammud page and then he relocated the rest of it to my page (undoubtedly becasue he didn't want what he wrote to become public consumption). I see that I did not move things correctly, but notwithstanding all that --- I attacked no one this time.DocEss 20:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

wth is wrong with you?

fine, I won't drivel on your talkpage, but you keep the drivel off article talkpages. You engaged in some playful user-to-user talk. This is what user talkpages are for. If you didn't like what I said, revert it, I don't mind, but don't spam it to other places. A diff to my edit is in place, so it's not like I was trying to hide what I said. And now do some useful edits for a change. Try to get people respect you by writing some articles maybe. dab (ᛏ) 19:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

We both allowed the Article Talk page to veer of topic. You simply moved one tiny portion of it to my talk page. That made no sense. Keep it all together wher it should be and then we can get back on course.DocEss 19:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There is too much idle chat on that page already. If you want to go with your idle chat on article talkpages, do it and see how far others tolerate you, but do not move my idle chat which I placed properly on a user talkpage. dab (ᛏ) 19:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Just leave it on the Article and let us move on.DocEss 19:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

let me know when you've contributed something useful and I might continue this conversation. dab (ᛏ) 19:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Sushi Picture

Really? A awful lot of people seem to have copied it in the 1 month it has been here on WP. One site seems to even have "your" picture on their website back in 2003. It is a copyvio, please don't try to harm the integrity and honesty of this encyclopedia. SFC9394 21:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Do people honestly believe that the content of user:talk pages actually reflects on the integrity of the articles? I would sincerely hope that nobody does. GreatMizuti 09:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea if people believe that. All I believe is that people uploading copyrighted pictures, claiming they created them when they didn't - then lying to me about it, is harming the integrity of this encyclopedia. I would sincerely hope that every wikipedian cares about copyright - otherwise this entire project becomes meaningless and baseless. SFC9394 12:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey! Now that's a little aggressive - I didn't lie about anything. I've had that picture on my computer for goodness knows how long. I received it by email from a friend from a friend from another friend etc.. Just what copyright status is it suppossed to get? I mean - everyone and his dog has a copy of that picture. It's public property and I uploaded it. Can you please help me figure out the copyright status? I'd very much appreciate your help.DocEss 16:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You claimed you had created the image, reverted an editor when they tagged it as a possible CV and called them a vandal - and have now conceded you didn't create the image at all - pretty straight forward in my eyes. As for the image itself, the situation you describe doesn't suggest it is public domain. An image being widely distributed/used doesn't mean it is in the public domain - the coca cola logo is everywhere, but it is not PD. The image could be tagged as fair use, but fair use images can't be used on User Pages, so that wouldn't be much use to the situation given the image is only used on your user page. Unfortunately WP isn't orientated towards the email "funnies" type content. SFC9394 18:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Sushi.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sushi.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

my userpage

Thanks for your minor correction to my user page. While I admit it violates policy, I won't object to minor corrections such as that (mainly because I might do the same). But I wished to point out the cute irony of that action, considering what was immediately above that section on my page.  :-) Carry on, Baccyak4H 18:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)