User talk:GTBacchus/Archive 3

Wikipedia survey

Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 01:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Lick

I doubt very seriously that he has changed or will reform, but I have no objections to unblocking, but I will reblock if he continues to disrupt. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Has he said anything/done anything about removing the blog entry calling for vandalism and POV pushing? JoshuaZ 19:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I see that he has not removed the invitation to vandalism from his blog, but instead has added a weasel worded paragraph saying, in essence, "but you really shouldn't do this". I also see he is collaborating with banned user Amorrow, according to his Talk page. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me that he knew WHO Amorrow was, someone has left a message that will hopefully set him straight. Do you have a link to the blog? JoshuaZ 00:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

http://shilllicker.blogspot.com/ See the March 30 entry. He added the "Update" paragraph after I asked him how he can claim to be reformed if he still retains the invitation to vandalism on his blog. The rest of that day's entry, both above and below the Update paragraph were the original parts of it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a non-retraction retraction. He is still calling for POV-pushing on the page, and the comment about Wikipedia loving the "fundamentalists" is part of that also, not to mention it looks like an attempt to game the rules of WP:NPA by keeping his personal attacks about editors offsite. JoshuaZ 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.... -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Before archived, I made it clear on my talk-page that I'd be willing to make further adjustments if anything like the "beautiful" changes continued. I have also delayed restoring the link to the blog from my user page. Trust in the way of the shill. ;)--Pro-Lick 14:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I see you have re-added the link, which I have re-removed. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Picking on opinions you do not like is obscene

I followed the discussion. The proposal to userfy all userboxes did not succeed, and in the meantime there is nothing ruling out political userboxes, not to speak of deleting them from the user space. Singling out someone you do not agree with like NicholasTurnbull does is just obscene, and as long as you do not delete all the userboxes - which I would be perfectly ok with - stop picking on mine. ROGNNTUDJUU! 02:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said, there is no rule by now that allows deletion of userfied userboxes. And the Iraq independence template was voted to be kept, so a single admin is not entitled to remove it just because he does not like it. ROGNNTUDJUU! 03:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I want my subpages unblocked such that other users can use them, too, and we are all linked to one page. ROGNNTUDJUU! 03:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What is your motive? If it is that you don't support the use of Wiki servers to bolster political opinions, then you must essentially make all userpages neutral, which defeats the purpose of a personalized userspace and necessarily requires censorship. And I don't see what is so terribly wrong about notifying others of one's biases; nonetheless, I am willing to confine such blatant notifications to userspace only. I am in the process of gathering the code for my userboxes, provided their pages aren't blocked by those who wish to obstruct the freedom of expression on userpages.

Hopefully you are not opposed to my expressing my opinions in userspace, for then you would also be opposed to a fundamental concept of Wikipedia: the collection of a wide array of different viewpoints to essentially achieve NPOV. I mean, we express our opinions (either naturally or intentionally) through article discussions and through editing, so why shouldn't we be allowed to express them on our userspace. Do you agree or disagree with this logic?

I'm making a lot of assumptions, but you are free to respond.

--WGee 04:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should only intentionally publicize our opinions on our userpages (or talk pages), if we so choose, which is why I am attempting to gather all codes for my userboxes.

Also, I find it somewhat paradoxical that you are suggesting how I should reveal my personality. Others might not hold such strong or polemic political views as I; accordingly, they might not feel it necessary to reveal themselves through their beliefs. Conversely, my beliefs play an important role in my life, so I see it necessary to reveal them in order to indicate my personality.

And yes, I've heard the argument before about userboxes being a cheap and lazy way of simplisticly revealing your opinion. Well, as a secondary school student I don't have the time or the deisre to write a long exposition about myself. If somebody would like me to elaborate on my beliefs, I will, step by step. Moreover, userboxes themselves do not create a culture that discourages critical thought, for critical thought is demonstrated all the time through editing and talk page discussions. Also, my userboxes are intended to be only a superficial insight into my beliefs, not a strict definition of all that I believe in. And you should not characterize those with divisive or polemic opinions as a bunch of closed-minded, POV pushers; I strive for neutrality and balance just as you do, but keep in mind that neutrality is subjective.

Also, you would like all users to transcend their personal beliefs here on Wikipedia. But I find such a suggestion anti-humanistic, for humans will naturally always defend their opinions, though some in more subtle ways than others.

Furthermore, neutrality is not objective; therefore, Wikipedia is a mosaic of different POVs, which is why it must operate according to consensus to achieve neutrality. In other words, when all editors strive to achieve their definition of NPOV, the result is an intersting blend of POVs. Its creators certainly relaized that.

Oh ya, and my non-sequitur. What I was trying to say is that we "might as well" express our opinions on userpages, since we are inevitably going to reveal our opinions through our editing. I find it deceptive that some editors, and administrators in particular (though maybe not you), portray themselves as neutral, especially in controversial articles.

WGee 18:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding User:Billcica

You wrote:

I only know about this from the note on WP:AN/I and some minimal looking at User:Billcica's edits. I see no vandalism, just a wanton disregard for WP:CITE (and an ignorance of how we use talk pages here). Uncited, POV edits are bad, and should be removed, but they're not vandalism - let's not WP:BITE the newbie. Just demand citations for the "facts" in question. Then nobody has room for accusations of POV, etc. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. However, I would urge you to look at what this user has done to his talk page, and to look more in-depth into what he has done to the talk page of User:IronChris. If these don't constitute as vandalism, I don't know what does. Also, if you will look in his talk page history (it is no longer on his talk page since he deleted all complaints that were posted against him) you will see that I responded to his original posts in a friendly manner, especially since I saw that it was his first day on Wikipedia. I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and he came back with blatant personal attacks and user page vandalism. Please give this another consideration. Thank you. --Romarin 00:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: E-mail

Okay, I'd be most interested in hearing this. — Apr. 9, '06 [02:37] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I'm in the process of reviewing the edits, and attempting to contact other knowledgeable partied via e-mail and IRC regarding this issue. I am not yet comfortable with the thought of unblocking the user. — Apr. 9, '06 [03:59] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Abortion reversions

Are reversions the worst thing... perhaps, perhaps not. I had already decided Good could get the last rv in; just for nostalgic purposes. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Grumpy or not, you're good people. :"D RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of User:ReallyTryingHere's message.

In this diff you refer to User:PoolGuy as a banned user. This is not the case. Please learn the difference between Wikipedia:Blocking policy and Wikipedia:Banning policy. Kotepho 08:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Dallas Population Data

Please edit the Dallas population page to reflect the North Central Texas Council of Governments latest population estimates dated 3/26/2006.

Dallas population is now estimated at 1,260,950, and the DFW Metropolitan area is 16 counties, not 12, and the total Metro population is 6,242,800.

Here is a link to the study for documentation purposes. http://www.dfwinfo.com/ris/demographics/population/2006popestimates.pdf

Universism

GTBacchus: You are right, it is not always easy to know the best way to get a point across. Thanks for your offer to help.

By the way, I wish to make it clear--and I am sure my internet friend, Warren Farr, at unitheism.org will agree--that neither he nor I claim, in the face of good evidence, to be the first to coin the word 'unitheism'. We prefer to have a mature and open dialogue about the important concept behind the word rather than a childish hassle about who originated it.

As I understand it, here is what we claim: We came up with the word, independently of each other, and, at the same time, we were unaware of what others had done. If anyone can identify the person who first coined 'unitheism' and used it meaningfully, I am sure both of us will be willing to acknowledge that facts and rejoice.

Incidentally, for some time now, I have been aware of the concept known as panentheism--God as that which is one with, and is in and through All that IS. I chose 'unitheism' as doublet of panentheism, and as a way of avoiding confusion with pantheism.

Yours as a lover or words, old or new,

The Rev. Lindsay G. King lindsaykin@gmail.com (905) 764-1125

Why was Newburgh Sharks Swim Club deleted?

You write uncontested, but I never saw a place to contest this. Isn't there a process to delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdflu2006 (talk • contribs)

Irony

does this image fit what you want Image:Monument hill fremantle.jpg a memorial to dead using the weapon that killed them. Gnangarra 09:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

New versions

Just added 4.3 to first paragraph discussion. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think the worst evil is how I had it before:

An abortion is the expulsion or removal from a uterus of an embryo or fetus, caused by or resulting in its death.

Andrew c saw this as a split; looks better than repetition IMO. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

help

please help me gain some approval with the launderette if you may. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inanthropomorphism (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles

Thanks for the link, but I don't think I'm ready to make a project out of the Independent record labels yet. My objective at present is simply to save the list of redlinks before it gets deleted. RayGates 01:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I have added my page to Wikipedia missing topics. RayGates 00:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Why?

there is already discussion on the Talk page about the lack of verification and the POV in the article. And the repeated discussions on AfD and DRV do not need to be repeated ad nauseum. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"flirting with 3RR?"? I've made two edits, I've explained my reasons on the Talk page. Your threat is an attempt at silencing me. Where have I said I would violate 3RR? I'm not even close. And removal of vandalism isn't a 3RR count, anyway, though I wasn't planning on reverting it again. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

How am I supposed to take ungrounded threats of blocking except as attempts at silencing? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Cfd reminder

I wanted to leave a note to remind you that you should not orphan categories prior to bringing them to CFD. In Category:American army groups, the discussion ended up with a keep so I had to move the articles back in. Luckily it was only three, and they stood out clearly in your contributions list. --Syrthiss 02:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh not a problem. As to the debate, I'm not sure I followed it either...but the people who commented are regulars so I'm taking their word on it. It may have been that you were suggesting delete, but we usually have no qualms about turning delete discussions into merge discussions. If its important to you, I can relist it and state that I didn't quite follow it either. --Syrthiss 02:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. :) --Syrthiss 03:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

AN/I

You're a check on the Prod system, Eusebeus is a check on you, and AfD is a check on Eusebeus. The sun's shining, birds are singing, etc.

An eminently accurate and fair comment. Kudos on your appropriate and measured assessment of the situation... Joe 16:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Doubtful

It is impossible to improve an article which relies on total conjecture and original research for its basic premise. The best I could do would be to start removing the unreferenced items and those items where the references are clearly shown not to prove what is claimed in the article, and you know where that would lead. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/By any means necessary

Are you really saying that you support Monicasdude's accusations of racism? User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Would you like me to say that? Would that help? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What's up?

What's up is your completely inexplicable backing of trolls like Monicasdude and POV warriors like Deecevoice. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, disagreeing with you doesn't make someone a troll. I strongly disagree with Monicasdude also and think that she is much too quick to accuse people of vandalism or bad faith, sometimes makes keep arguments that are counter to guidelines, but none of that makes her a troll. Monicasdude is a strong inclusionist acting in good faith, not a troll. Please chill. JoshuaZ 04:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have to strongly disagree with you, Joshua, that Monicasdude is acting in good faith. Good faith does not remove PROD tags on flimsy reasoning and then accuse others of bad faith for bringing the article to AfD, which is what is supposed to be done. Good faith does not involve accusing everybody who disagrees with you of being a vandal and a racist. Bacchus, about your comments on my Talk page: admins are not supposed to be anything more than another editor, according to the rules of adminship, so there's nothing anywhere that makes me a role model. I'm an editor who wants to follow the policies of Wikipedia, and when those policies are ignored, in fact, flouted, then there's something wrong with what's going on, and something needs to be done, but if everybody just looks away, then where are we? Why do we have policies, if they can be ignored just because a minority of "voters" on an AfD or DRV can decide to ignore them? User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop distorting my comments, Zoe. I've commented repeatedly on structural bias and institutional insensivity on Wikipedia, not accused individual users of racism; you keep fitting yourself for a hood and insisting that I forced it on you. As somebody said, Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Monicasdude 00:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to pardon me for leaving this on your talk page, GTB, but I cannot leave a message on MD's talkpage without it being uncivilly deleted. Monicasdude, if you've ever wondered why the whole world seems to be after you, I offer you this solution: perhaps it could be that you're in the wrong here? I know how easy it is to have a persecution complex; you have one without even realizing it. That you accuse innocent editors of hounding you and distorting what you have to say is symptomatic, in my mind, of your approach to Wikipedia's community policy and your efforts to twist them to punish other editors while ignoring the fact that you fly in the face of what is civil or even appropriate. Kuzaar 03:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that there are at least six comments from you on my talk page right now, your statement that I delete all your comments is a clear example of distortion. Methinks the laddy doth protest too much. Monicasdude 03:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that if you look at your history, you have deleted no fewer than four instances of my comments on your page critical of you but by no means even toeing the line on being out of bounds in civility, your claims of distortion are not as stable as you assert. Note also that I have neither been uncivil to you nor deleted your comments on my talk page even though by your rationale (it being my talk page) I could do so willy-nilly; I personally think of it as an immensely disrespectful thing to do to another editor. Kuzaar 18:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool (African philosophy) was deleted, then it was recreated and got venue shopped till it got saved by DRV, despite the fact that Deeceevoice is making up the resources she's claiming prove her point. The exact same thing happened at The Game (game), which got deleted because of no valid resources, then venue shopped till it got saved at DRV. We're turning our backs on WP:V, and neither AfD nor DRV should be allowed to overturn policy, but in both of these cases, they have. And yet I'm the bad bitch in all of this. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Compare http://www.lib.virginia.edu/clemons/RMC/exhib/93.ray.aa/Elements.html - which is one of the articles Deeceevice uses as proof of her claims - against what she says in the article it says, and you'll see she's putting her own spin on things. I have said all along that there should be an article about the Robert Farris Thompson book she uses as supporting documentation, but it shouldn't be used as the sole proof of her allegation. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Also see CoYep's arguments at Talk:African aesthetic, and Deeceevoice's inability to address them without incivility. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The Dutch newspaper doesn't give us any explanation as to where they got their information from. It might be all blogs, for all we know, but since we don't know, it's no more reliable than a blog. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your interest

Thanks for your assorted thoughts and statements, and for your minor edits in a few places. I at least end up with the impression that somebody is actually listening well enough to notice small errors.

As an aside, there is now a "request for deletion" against "rationales to impeach" (for the second time) and i hope that you will add your opinion on the matter. Thanks. Prometheuspan 22:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[1]

Tom Waits

I wanted to thank you for your recent edits to the Tom Waits article. It is time for some kind of decisive action to bring a halt to the constant vandalism on that page. --Charles 17:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

TOM WAITS VANDALISM

I'M NEW TO WIKIPEDIA. WHEN I LOOKED UP "TOM WAITS" I FOUND WHAT I BELIEVED TO BE AN ERROR. SO I CORRECTED IT. THEN, SEVERAL DAYS LATER I NOTICED IT HAD BEEN CHANGED BACK TO THE ORIGINAL TEXT CONTAINING THE ERROR. ALSO A NOTE THAT MY CORRECTION WAS "VANDALISM". WELL, I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW CAN A PERSON MAKE A CORRECTION IF SOMEONE ELSE CALLS IT "VANDALISM" MY CORRECTION WAS IN GOOD FAITH AND NOT IN ANY WAY INTENDED TO BE "VANDALISM". I BELIEVE MY INPUT IS AS VALUABLE AS ANYONE ELSE'S. IF THE FACTS ARE IN DISPUTE, WHATS THE PROPER WAY TO RESOLVE WITHOUT JUST LETTING INACCURATE INFO GO? I APOLOGIZE FOR ANY THING I MAY HAVE DONE WRONG PROCEDURALLY. I WOULD APPRRECIATE A REPLY. UNTIL THEN, I REMAIN A USER WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO CONTRIBUTE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.210.90.215 (talk • contribs) .

This is ostensibly in reference to the birthplace, given as Pomona, California but twice edited by the above user to be Valparaiso, Indiana. I've only a mild familiarity with Tom Waits, but a Google search suggests that Pomona is correct (or, at the very least, is verifiable; perhaps the anon editor would be well-served to read WP:V, in particular apropos of the distinction between truth and verifiability, to which the discussion on the Waits talk page also seems to allude). Notwithstanding that, I do think it to have been untoward for one to ascribe "vandalism" to the edits, inasmuch as they appear to have been made in good faith; there doesn't seem to be any such explicit ascription, though, except by one editor (TheOldAnarchist, who writes above). In any case, one does worry about a user's reinserting unverified information into an article in the absence of a talk page consensus or where a consensus appears to exist against the inclusion of the information, but a new user is not necessarily cognizant of the prescriptions of WP:BRD (especially if he/she has seen WP:BB) or the proscriptions of 3RR (which he/she didn't violate), so I think this can be chalked up to one's being a newbie. I am heartened to find a new contributor, though, who is willing civilly (if in majuscules) to discuss changes and to comport his/her behavior with Wiki policy, especially about an article in which he/she doesn't have a personal interest, as that bodes well for his/her future as a valuable contributor. Joe 21:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Never mind; you came to the same conclusions as I and already addressed the issue with the user. Excellent job, as usual. Joe 21:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You claim that the edit you made was in good faith and based on what you believed to be correct information. Perhaps. But, that does not explain why you chose to rewrite the comment I made on the discussion page. That was completely over the line, and it leads me to believe that your motives are not as innocent as you claim. If I am wrong, I will admit so, but you will have to explain why you chose that course of action. --Charles 04:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sheldon Vanauken copyright

Hi, GTBacchus, I've been meaning to ask you about something for a while. I recall that some time ago, our friend Conrad-14 year old socialist added the lyrics of a Billy Joel song to his talk page, and you removed them for copyright reasons.

Have you any idea if it's okay for me to have the complete text of a Sheldon Vanauken sonnet on my user page? Vanauken died in 1996. If you think I should remove it, please let me know. I'm not worried about the Robert Southwell poem: he's dead a long time! Cheers. AnnH ♫ 22:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Links at Hookah

The reason being because the people at that website are the ones who have been deleting BOTH of our links lately, I emailed you about this before. If you wish to talk about it further, please email me, I assume you know who I am. -B —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omega4 (talk • contribs) .

Hookah External Links

Hey, I'm so sorry. I just noticed that rule. If you can't tell, I'm new to wikipedia. What should I do now? And how can I go back and make sure they're signed? Kuriohara 01:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, GTBacchus. Glad to be here. Very helpful, indeed. I think I got them all.. Thanks for the welcome. Kuriohara 01:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

TOM WAITS VANDALISM

TO: Theoldanarchist. I have no good defense. I did it out of 1) anger 2) not understanding how the process works. At first, I didn't know how to add comments. I'm still not sure exactly how. As for changing your post, I apologise to you. Please forgive me, it was wrong. It made me angry that you referred to my imput as vandalism. Personnally, I still believe what Tom said about where he was born, however I shall refrain from editing that point. I wish you well. Once again, please accept my apology. Ed 1961 18:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. Apology accepted. I do not wish to take up any more space on Bacchus' talk page, so let's just consider the matter settled. I think we both acted out of anger, at least a little, which rarely has a positive result. --Charles 04:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

I want to thank you for the 2 links you provided regarding TOM WAITS. My comments weren't intended for you but were meant for user:Theoldanarchist. Sorry about the confusion. I'm struggling with the format and not doing so well. I'm kinda slow, so everyone please bear with me. thanks again for your help. Ed 1961 04:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for stepping in on our Phish situation. BabuBhatt 03:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Undelete

No problem, in answer to your question:

1. It isn't that hard, I have something in my monobook.js file to do it, would you like me to try to extricate it and set it up for you?
2. The preferred way to do deletions has instructions here, it doesn't involve that many check boxes.
3. You can always shift select the boxes to select them all.

Prodego ^talk 19:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Automatic box ticker for undeleting all versions except one

Hi, GTBacchus, I saw your message about deleting Talk:Abortion. I deleted a lot of pages with personal information over the Easter weekend, and it took hours. I have since discovered this, and it works brilliantly. I can now remove personal information from a page with a big history in just a few seconds.

I've also discovered that you can do it by ticking the top box, then holding down "shift" and ticking the bottom one, then unticking whichever one(s) you want to. I'm not sure if it works in all browsers, though. AnnH ♫ 19:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. — have just seen that someone else was answering your query. I think the MediaWiki:Watcheditlist/Check all is a very quick and easy way of setting it up. I have seen other things that you can install, but the name "monobook.js" sounds like something you'd have to be very brainy to install, so I found the other less daunting. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 19:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

response

Thanks for your thoughts! I am a "keep threads together" sort, so I have responded at length on my talk page and am happy to discuss further there. I don't think we're that far apart... perhaps my broader experiences in the past don't directly translate to wikispace... but I doubt that to be the case. ++Lar: t/c 17:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh right.

Sorry :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.31.202.215 (talk • contribs) .

That anon made this edit. The cake actually looked not like what the anon said, but like a sex act to me (all I'm going to say is San Francisco). I first thought it was a joke, but nobody noticed, then I thought I had a sick mind. I was afraid to even mention it. Is it just me? (worried) DyslexicEditor 09:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:John Kerry

What's that move to /Bad about? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what I was going to ask. — Ilyanep (Talk) 17:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

There was an edit with someone's personal info, and I was getting rid of it at a different location so it's less likely to be accidentally undeleted, or even seen, later. Maybe I should have mentioned it on the talk page, but I was trying to call less attention to the personal info, not more. It should be clear from my admin logs what I was doing, anyway. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I get it now. There's John Kerry, and there's Talk:John Kerry. I think I've cleared everything up now, and buried all the personal info in unmarked graves. Sorry for any inconvenience. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for clearing that up. — Ilyanep (Talk) 17:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a test

That wasn't a test... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JeffHarris (talk • contribs) .

Assistance needed

User 68.112.25.197 has taken it upon himself to make a series of changes to various KISS-related articles. He did so without bringing it up on any talk pages, so I reverted the changes. He has since changed everything back, without discussing it first (he added a comment to KISS discography AFTER the fact). I have no desire to engage in an edit war, but do see that this user was already blocked once for behavior like this. I was wondering if you could provide some assistance. Thanks! --cholmes75 16:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Bow Wow page

I recommended that it only be seen as a rumor. Bow Wow had always been the talkative one in the relationship, so I trust him more when asked about a breakup. Sorry, I'll try to be more careful. Thanks! M. Burmy 17 May 2006 11:31 CDT (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for taking care of the move for If on a winter's night a traveler! PFlats 02:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

My Avocado...

Yeah i went over the line. I have a request... since Tomato and Jalapeno are on that list, can we add Avocado to the "Herbs and Spices" table (

) I think its relevant... The Animal 04:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

editing tables

Thanks, i wasn't sure how.... i left a note about a month ago on the Western Athletic Conference page asking a table edit cause i didn'tk now how to do it myself... (its since been done). Thanks for showing me how to do it. The Animal 04:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Computer article

The 40 million lines of code fact is verified here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_lines_of_code under the section "Usage of SLOC measures" 2 tables contain information about lines of code supplied by Andrew Tanenbaum. The "40 million lines" has markup linking to that article. Windows XP links to an article about Windows XP on Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP), because Windows XP refers to Windows XP. Likewise 40 million lines of code links to an article about lines of code. If those articles on wikipedia aren't verified then perhaps they require editing before the computer article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.179.195.75 (talk • contribs) .

Sorry about that misunderstanding. It’s very unfortunate that the editors are unable to click on every link to ensure suitability; I tried to make it as obvious as I could with the tools provided. I too believe it would be interesting to have a comparison between OS lines of code and application lines of code. The reasons I chose to change the article were 2 fold. Firstly I felt a link to cnet's site quoting "Mozilla is currently reviewing the roughly 2 million lines" did not feel like something attributable to someone, it sounded like that author’s best guess. Secondly Firefox being cited as a typical example, typical would infer that it is common or usual however Firefox is neither of these (getting closer to being). I believe that Windows XP provided a more typical example because; it is more common and therefore most readers of this article are likely to have some familiarity with it.

There unfortunately isn’t enough space to put those reasons in when changing an article, I became frustrated at the article being changed back without at least clicking on the links I intentionally placed there. I apologise for my frustration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.179.195.75 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks

Hey, thanks for removing vandalism on my talk page- five days ago. I never even noticed until I saw "Restore 1 deleted edit?" when I went to edit my page.... CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 01:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

fageism

Fageism is short for fetal-ageism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jfraatz (talk • contribs) .

Yes fageism is a neologism to describe the abortion issue in how it relates to ageism. As far as I know no other word exists which notices the connection between abortion policies and ageism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jfraatz (talk • contribs) .

User:Jimpartame

Sigh. I started the AfD on Amokolia, which I found while looking at recent changes. I have no idea what the deal is with Jimpartame (talk · contribs), and never heard of him before today, but from his talk page he just came out of a 24 hour block yesterday. He seems to have a pattern of adding something silly, then insisting it's not silly, which means the heavy machinery of AfD has to be cranked up. I put a {{behave}} on his talk page; maybe he'll get the message. If not, another block may be in order. You might want to watch his contributions. Thanks. --John Nagle 07:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

He's now been blocked indefinitely for unrelated pagemove vandalism. Now he's trying to get unblocked. He just put a note on his talk page saying "What about the good edits I made to Peak-end rule, Double check valve, and The Glass Key?" I took a quick look at Double check valve, which I know something about, and he'd added a plausible-sounding but bogus sentence about how such devices would work better if the density of water were higher. Then I looked at The Glass Key, where he listed a Dashell Hammett character as a transvestite. (This seemed unlikely in a 1942 book, and is not supported by reviews of the book or movie on the Web.) I don't know enough psychology to verify his change to Peak-end rule, but that looks questionable, too. I've done a revert and put in a "verify" tag where appropriate. It might be worthwhile to go through his entire contributions list, but I don't have time to do that. Anyway, I'd suggest that unblocking him would not be a good thing. --John Nagle 17:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Swahili in Uganda

Yeah, here's another source: http://english.people.com.cn/200507/07/eng20050707_194660.html —by Krwarnke (talk • contribs) .

Unblock

Thanks for the note. If he has agreed to stop spamming, then I have no problem whatsoever with his unblocking. Feel free to go ahead. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 23:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)}

Thank you for explaining

Thank you for explaining the whole bit there. I appreciate it, as you're right - I didn't know about that aspect of it all. If people would take the time to explain what's going on sometimes, all of this whole to-do could have been avoided... SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Herculaneum

Good lookin' out there on Herculaneum. I tried to go back as far as I could in rolling that one back. KC9CQJ 04:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

While I am very glad that you have read and considered my contribution to the Fox News article, I must say that I am sorry that you felt compelled to revert it. I hate to disappoint you, and I mean this in the nicest possible way, but you are human; your store of knowledge is limited. Incredible though it may seem, there are flying purple hippos in this world.

I made this observation in the Fox News article primarily because it was Bill O'Reilly and Tony Snow who first told me. For a long time, I did not believe, either, but then I saw the magnificent beast hovering over my mailbox not quite two weeks ago; it only just now occurred to me to share my experience with the world. Wikipedia, being a widely accessed and well-loved resource, seemed like the perfect medium for getting the word out. Moreover, my actions seemed to me to be in keeping with Wikipedia's bold, forward-looking attitude; I may have been one of the first to learn of the purple hippo, but I tried to tell the whole world. I tried, knowing that people like you would attempt to stop me, and I failed. But rest assured: somehow, somewhere, I will try again. Perhaps not on Wikipedia, given your disapproval, but elsewhere... unless the purple hippo could have its own article? I would very much like to hear your opinion at some point in the future.

Until then, I remain,

Very truly yours, The Hippomaestro —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.89.238.62 (talk • contribs) .

CAUBXD

Heh, about the "administrators restarting the userboxen war" thing, mboverload did that, so you might wanna put something on his page instead of CAUBXD's. Freddie^{Against Userbox Deletion?} 22:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I Do Not Understand

I have been editing this site for quite sometime trying to keep people informed on all the references made in the different sections. I don't understand why my hotlinks are considered vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.73.53.5 (talk • contribs) 19:43, May 24, 2006 (UTC).

Spanish Interwikis

I'm sorry, Persea Americana is the scientific name, however the common name of this fruit is palto or palta. And If there's already an article about it, maybe it woul be a better idea to change the title and add the common name too. Don't you think? I'm not familirize doing this kind of title change, but maybe you cant tell me how. Thanks anyway --Evelyn Zuñiga 22:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Omagua article - Please do not reverted

Hi, I'm not breaking links. Iwrote that article, and then I made an extensive research. Previous links are not the same type of flora or fauna that we have in my country. They are completely different. That's why I created new pages with the exact scientific name so it won't be any confusion (and also hoping that someone else could write an article about them. So please stop making the reversion, because you are linking to the wrong information. Thanks. --Evelyn Zuñiga 23:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Janca article

Hi, I agree with you in this article because I wasn't aware that the scientific name of this plant is Azorella yarita or Azorella yareta. I just didn't know that the second one exits (up to know). Thanks for helping learn something new =).--Evelyn Zuñiga 15:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Omagua article

Regarding this article, I think now is perfect (take a look at the new version please). I just addes some words, and take others out that I think were not necessary anymore. I do want to thank you, because you were right in some links (I just can not believe how did I miss those articles). Just to let you an example, you were perfectly right in the links of the Capybara and the Peruvian red deer. I do not agree about the link of the Cattleya Rex (again because I think is not the specific one) but still is similar, so by now I guess is ok. Thanks for helping me do a better article. I hope next time I have time to write another one, you can help me with the edition (if that is not too much to ask). Thanks --Evelyn Zuñiga 15:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

OOPS & thanks

Gracias por el ~~~~ ... Siempre aprendo algo! And now I don't even know whether I'm in the en or es wiki... Thanks again!

Juan Carlos Jclerman 16:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Persea, avocados, paltas

Not only Persea americana es avocado. See other species in [2] Jclerman 09:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Pro-choice tags

Unfortunately Pro-choice is in exactly the same mess as it always is. Badly written POV stuff written for Americans by Americans, who stand guard over it and won't allow professional editing, professional sourcing, even templates, even though deleting templates is regarded all over WP as a serious faux pas that is regularly treated as vandalism. But then the Pro-choice and Pro-life pages are always a joke on WP. (I've lost count of the number of times I've seen someone do fair balanced edits on the pages only to find a few days later that the usual POV-pushers have highjacked them and returned the pages to unverified POV garbage. I can think of at least 20 top class editors over the last two years who have been driven away from those pages by the POV pushers and their reversions of any attempt to clean up the mess. One of the people driven away I know personally off Wikipedia to be a very senior and well known pro-choice activist in the UK. But even she couldn't stomach the antics on the pro-choice page and quit.)

Both pages have their legions of POV-pushers standing guard over them to stop anything remotely NPOV to be added in. The fact that they won't even accept a template pointing out the fact that page lacks a worldview speaks volumes for the antics there. The fact that they don't tolerate editing, won't tolerate international information being added in and won't tolerate templates to my mind defines the individuals responsible as POV vandals. Frankly, if pages remain at dunce level for so long because of the appalling level of inaccuracy in them, and a group of POV pushers prevent the pages being edited except by them, then the pages might as well be deleted. They are of no value to Wikipedia and just undermine its credibility. People wouldn't tolerate just antics elsewhere. Users are regularly blocked and banned for it. But Pro-life and Pro-choice have become such pains in the backside that most people just avoid the pages like the plague. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 00:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)}

All I've seen is that you keep trying to insert changes against consensus, to the point of edit-warring. Furthermore, while I have no objection to legitimate use of tags such as {{POV}}, there is such a thing as abuse. When I have to scroll down through warning tags to find the lead, something is very wrong.

My suggestion, Jtdirl, is that you tone down your disgust and hostility, and instead join us in harmonious editing. Al 00:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

But I have explained repeatedly and been ignored. On the rare occasions Al deigns to discuss things it is to assume the "pro-choice pope" position that users must convince him as though it is his article and he can vet other people's contributions. So he reverts to the version he wants, deletes things he doesn't want, and demands that he be convinced before things can go in. It is up to him to justify the inaccurate mess that is his article. And until he does some explaining for once, rather than demanding everyone else do it, the tags stay in. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 00:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)}

I'm willing to discuss, but not willing to be bullied. You really can't expect people to look upon you favorably when you consistently threaten to have them banned for no higher crime than disagreement. As an admin, you ought to know better. Al 00:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

On pages users disagree and discuss edits. They don't delete chunks of text. They don't delete links. They don't delete factual information and they don't then delete tags inserted to say that the content is disputed. Users who do that are regularly blocked for such behaviour. Admins have let you away with things that they have blocked other users for elsewhere, simply because it is the pro-choice article and it and the pro-life page both have a reputation as being the sort of place you don't touch with a barge pole. In the past admins tried to enforce blocks on users highjacking the page. On one day 11 people had to be blocked for the sort of antics you are up to. In the end we all got fed up trying to do anything there. Apart from the odd joke about just deleting the damn pages altogether, people simply avoid them like the plague. Your antics are typical of those pages. They would not be tolerated at credible pages on Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 00:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)}

It would be helpful if you offered something other than conspiracy theories. Your edits were repeatedly reverted because they were major changes that, according to consensus, made a radical POV shift in the article. We've all tried repeatedly to get you to talk about your desired changes, but you've been most uncooperative. Al 01:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

addition

Sorry I couldn't add that in earlier. I was dealing with a couple of rather messy admin issues (vandalism, a death threat to a user, etc) so I couldn't get around to it. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 03:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)}

Sockpuppet

Firstly, let me say that I am not violating WP:AGF, as the evidence (contributions) shows. The anon on whose talk page you posted today won't get an account because he or she is a sockpuppet. It is possible (I have nothing besides circumstantial evidence though) that he or she is the same as various other IPs in the same range, some of which have voted as sockpuppets (again, they may or may not be the same person) in deletion discussions. Ardric47 05:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Pro-choice

I'm not sure exactly what specifics you are looking for it is obvious that the article isn't presenting a world view - it mentions Roe v. Wade, and "Democrates for life" but hardly anything to do with Europe. It has at least two citation needed tages, and often contradicts its self.

"Pro-choice activists believe that abortion should be a legal option for any woman with an unwanted pregnancy." vs. "People who identify as pro-choice fall along a spectrum of political opinion, ranging from the view that all abortions should be legal, to the view that abortions should only be legal until a certain date in the progression of the pregnancy (such as the third trimester, which is the approximate gestational age at which a fetus can survive outside of a woman's body)."

Hope this helps,

Chooserr 06:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well usually you seem NPOV to me but I'll watch the article... Chooserr 06:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

A far better actual definition of pro-choice is

Pro-choice is a term used to describe a political and ethical belief that a woman possesses an inate legal right to terminate her pregnancy by means of legal abortion. Political organisations that seeks to have this belief enshrined in constitutional and or statute law are generally described as being part of the Pro-choice movement. The movement sees a right to legal abortion as central to its campaign for what it defines as reproductive rights, namely the right of a woman alone to decide on all issues concerning her fertility, from pregnancy prevention using contraception to pregnancy termination using abortion.

It is important to make the point that pro-choice campaigners want legal abortion. They want abortion legalised and subject to legal protections and controls, not merely decriminalised, which would allow a free-for all with no protections for women and anyone setting up abortion clinics without controlled standards and proper medical care.

Regarding sources, here is a list I prepared earlier, which Alienus deleted.

Sources

Books

• Ninia Baehr, Abortion without Apology: A Radical History for the 1990s South End Press, 1990.
• Ruth Colker, Abortion & Dialogue: Pro-Choice, Pro-Life, and American Law Indiana University Press, 1992.
• Donald T. Critchlow, The Politics of Abortion and Birth Control in Historical Perspective Pennsylvania University Press, 1996.
• Myra Marx Ferree et al, Shaping Abortion Discourse: Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the United States Cambridge University Press, 2002.
• Marlene Gerber Fried, From Abortion to Reproductive Freedom: Transforming a Movement South End Press, 1990.
• Beverly Wildung Harrison, Our Right to Choose: Toward a New Ethic of Abortion Beacon Press, 1983.
• Suzanne Staggenborg, The Pro-Choice Movement: Organization and Activism in the Abortion Conflict, Oxford University Press, 1994.
• Raymond Tatalovich' The Politics of Abortion in the United States and Canada: A Comparative Study M.E. Sharpe, 1997

Articles & Journals

• Mary S. Alexander, "Defining the Abortion Debate" in ETC.: A Review of General Semantics, Vol. 50, 1993.
• David R. Carlin Jr., "Going, Going, Gone: The Diminution of the Self" in Commonweal Vol.120. 1993.
• Vijayan K. Pillai, Guang-Zhen Wang, "Women's Reproductive Rights, Modernization, and Family Planning Programs in Developing Countries: A Causal Model" in International Journal of Comparative Sociology, Vol. 40, 1999.
• Suzanne Staggenborg, "Organizational and Environmental Influences on the Development of the Pro-Choice Movement" in Social Forces, Vol. 68 1989.

See also

• Abortion
• Anti-abortion
• Pro-life
• Procreative liberty
• Reproductive rights
• South Dakota abortion law

External links

Media reportage

• BBC report of forced sterilisations and forced abortions in China.
• United Kingdom - media reports 2006
• Report on abortion in Russia

Abortion law internationally

• Text of Roe et al versus Wade
• Text of UK abortion law
• Abortion in Ireland
• Abortion in France
• Abortion in Germany
• Abortion in South Africa

Pro-choice advocacy groups

United States

• Abortion Clinics OnLine
• Abortion.com
• Medical Students for Choice
• National Abortion Federation
• Planned Parenthood
• Pro-Choice America
• SaveRoe

Ireland

• Alliance for Choice

United Kingdom

• pro+choice forum

Groups disagreeing with pro-choice groups

• United States and abortion pre-Roe versus Wade (covenant news)
• US congressman Rick Santorum on abortion
• Allegations that "abortion drug" RU 486 is responsible for deaths of women.
• California Pro-life Council
• Political Action Committee campaigning to get pro-life women elected to Congress

Abortion statistics

• International statistics
• United Kingdom statistics

FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 15:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)}

Peppers talk speedy-deletion review

As much as I hate bugging people about stuff like this, I felt compelled to now: Apparently an anon user put a speedy-delete tag that was removed but the page was still deleted by an admin, then promptly restored by another admin and protected (of course that means the page is essentially frozen, but there's not immediate notice that its being reviewed). The page is now being sorted out on Wikipedia:Deletion review, if you're around this holiday weekend I welcome you to drop by and make a comment. Alas, this saga gets more controversial than it really ever should be, but sometimes a person just feels like they got to say something. Take care. --Bobak 17:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I admit I made roughly the same comment to the handful of people who voted with me on that page --next time I'll be careful. The reason I felt worried now is that because the page is frozen it took me reading the talk page discussion between Gina and someone else to realize what was going on. Oddly enough, the Italian Peppers page appears to have demonstrated that an article can be created. --Bobak 17:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Lost discussions?

Hi GTBacchas, I have commented at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion in the past, e.g.,"20:28, May 14, 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion (Any speedy deletion criteria specifically targeting userboxes are premature)" [3]. However, when I looked for it on the page and the archives, I couldn't find it. In fact, several entries are missing from both the main discussion page and the archive. As an administrator, can you help me determine what happened to it? I certainly hope nothing is amiss. That would be a very serious situation. Rfrisbie^talk 20:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of edit summary

I understand that the situation had pretty much resolved itself, but I hope you weren't referring to me as a troll. I would like to know if I was doing something wrong. Sorry for any misunderstanding, Ardric47 22:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Um... no, not remotely, nor did I remove your comment. The edit summary was "remove troll", and I was removing a trolling comment from a banned user. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now I see; I can't find the diff that I thought showed a yellow box with my comment...I must need a nap. Thanks for bearing with me, Ardric47 22:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

response

I see the response on the pro-choice has been deafening! lol. That seems to be the usual route. New users make suggestions that get no response. But if they then change the article in any major way whatsoever it gets reverted with a stream of attacks about how "that's against consensus" and "it has not been discussed". Though how it can be discussed when the supposed consensus editors won't discuss it is a mystery. The best of luck with the endeavour. A lot of people have tried over the years to salvage that article and end up giving up in disgust when a small minority sit on the article exercise a veto over what can go in (ie, things they approve of) and what can't go in (things they won't accept, irrespective of detailed sourcing). The article is notorious, along with pro-life and worst of all abortion. On occasion good edits can get through. But then a month later one of the "consensus brigade" reappears, screams "hold on a minute" and dumps everything added in for weeks (in one case months) out and returns to the "correct" version. One very senior pro-choice activist in the UK was driven away in disgust not just from the articles but from Wikipedia by what happened to their work. And they had an indepth knowledge of the topic that led their advice to be sought by governments. But still it wasn't good enough for Wikipedia!!! (Bizarrely, one article sitter abused them by (mis)quoting a major document the expert had written for the Labour Party on reform of the abortion laws and saying "clearly you don't know what you are talking about. Experts like this show you are wrong!" They were speechless! (Experts who contribute to WP constantly get their own published works misquoted and misrepresented back to them. I had something I had written in an academic publication quoted back wrongly to me as "evidence" that experts disagreed with me!!! I burst out laughing, especially as the same person who abused me as jtdirl on WP quoted me as a world expert and sung by praises for something I had written publicly.)

Slán, FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 00:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)}

Minor key articles

I think you should discuss whether to use the natural minor scale or the harmonic minor scale at the Wikiproject. Georgia guy 13:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

procured

Correct amondo! My mistake, i'll put a space in front of the word in the settings so it will skip all forms of "proccured" for the future :) JoeBot 21:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

What is your exact stand on userboxes regardless of where the code is stored before transclusion/substitution?—David618 ^t 00:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think they're useful for some encyclopedic purposes; as you can see, I have a handful. I think, with their badge-like appearance, they're very powerful communication devices, which is why I think they're so popular, and so unpopular. I think the fun and games userboxes are mostly cheesey, but mostly harmless, and they can be cute. {{user Big Lebowski}} made me laugh. I think the ideological ones, wherever their code is stored, are really tacky decorations for an encyclopedia, and should really be gotten rid of, along with all ideological user categories. I think they're contrary to the spirit of the project, and hence ugly. I think they make it look like Wikipedia's a place for activism, which I strongly disagree with. I support being open about one's biases, but we have to do so in a way so that it remains clear that no kind of campaigning is at all welcome here. We should really encourage people to try their best to check their personal prejudices at the door.

I'm a teacher, for a living, and I would be way out of place to wear a political campaign button or t-shirt to class, as if my politics somehow have to do with what's happening in the classroom. I think of my role as political animal and my role as teacher as being separate. Similarly then, for my role as political animal and my role as Wikipedian.

I also agree with everything Geogre said here, except the part about staying out of the dispute. He's done a lot more work here than I have, and I trust him when he says near the bottom of that section that faction-forming is bad for Wikipedia. I've also seen it myself, and he's right.

I support the current move to get them out of Template space, and prevent their transclusion, because that's a good start, and I'm ok with stopping short of banning them entirely.

Perhaps that's a longer answer than you were hoping for? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. I think that Geogre has drawn some of the wrong conclusions but those concerns are justified. How do you feel about moving userboxes to a seperate namespace? You said on WP:MUPP: "a technical solution to a cuktural problem won't work" (sic). Are you also opposed to actually moving them to a new namespace or is it just that it would not satisfy may oponents? Also, why are you against transclusion?

I understand your arguement about politics and being a teacher; however, I have had teachers who were very open about their beliefs and it did not effect their teaching (in fact it probably helped it). I believe that the same can be true of an encyclopedia so long as no one tries editing articles that only show their belief. —David618 ^t 01:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Did I really spell "cultural with a 'k'? Huh. I'm against transclusion because it makes "what links here" available. It's what turns userboxes from personal expressions into group-building devices. It, and the attached user categories, are the real problematic aspects of userboxes; remove those and they're no longer dangerous, merely tacky.

Again with the teacher example, yeah I could see a good teacher being open about their politics - I've had those teachers, too. I still think campaign buttons or t-shirts would be inappropriate attire in the classroom. Thus, I'm super okay with people revearing their biases here, but I think user boxes are a cruddy way to do it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't chastise myself too harshly for a typo. I am mixed on the whole catagories thing. It can be used for good reasons but it also permits less desireable actions (that came out sounding a little harsh for what it means). Lastly, I find campaign buttons somewhat tacky no matter the circumstances but I don't find userboxes tacky—provided they aren't ugly. —David618 ^t 02:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Condom

GTBacchus, while I don't have a problem with your version it is radically changing the meaning of the intro. Because "which can" describes a possible effect, while "to" would imply the purpose. Chooserr 02:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony and I on deleting sections of Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates

In the last hour or so, Tony deleted some of the arguments at Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates. I just reverted most of them back in - one in a form expanded for two more layers. I also commented on the talk page. Can you review my actions and let me know what you think? I'm going to take a break for the night because both 1) it is bedtime and 2) I am not currently able to assume good faith on Tony's part. GRBerry 03:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears that I was now the straw that broke the camels back and drove Tony away from this page. I renew my request for you to give me feedback on my actions. I also ask that you, as you seem to be the closest to him in perspective, identify and solicit another member of the strong deletionist camp to contribute in his stead. GRBerry 17:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Article missing

Hi, I got one questions... What if I'm making a reference in the wikipedia in English but it doesn't exist, however it does in the wikipedia in spanish. Can I make the link or not? Or should I write a new article, or asking somebody to tranlate the article I'm linking to? --Evelyn Zuñiga 04:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

sorry, it was tony not you that deleted my arguments

The following diff is tony wiping out arguments claiming they are silly and old and such. [4]

I should have looked more closely before saying anything about who did it.

Cheers Ansell Review my progress! 01:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The "silly" point you didn't make

Hi, I don't want to clog up WP:AN/I, so I'll just mention here that when I wrote that post I hadn't seen your post, as I was typing very slowly (I'm feeling a bit shivery, so I think I'll go to bed now). There was no intention to suggest that you had said something silly! Cheers. AnnH ♫ 21:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Hi, As you appreciated my "Consensus skewing" comment, and are doing your best to come to a solution on T1/T2, I thought I'd let you know I've added a (very long winded!) reply at Wikipedia_talk:T1_and_T2_debates#Do_we_take_arguments_from_related_discussions.3F. I'm trying to limit my involvement in the debate as much as possible, as I think there are too many people involved at the moment to try and find a good solution as much of the repetation shows. Regards, and good night. MartinRe 21:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)