User talk:GTBacchus

Archives
January 2003 – December 2005

Please click here to leave me a new message.

• User talk:GTBacchus/Archive1 - January 2003 - October 2005

Stub

As you know, I am writting an article on the folksinger Bob Gibson. You added a template that the article is an American musician stub. When I finish the article, can I remove the stub template? When is an article no longer a stub? Who makes that determination? Thanks. JJ 00:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Chooserr's Block

I see that you're looking in to the latest Chooserr block, so I'll take the initiative and drop you a line. I think that Chooserr's block log makes for very interesting reading. Basically, since User:Chooserr has arrived, he has engaged in disruptive behavior nearly everywhere he has gone. Compared to that, I'd like you to consider the thousands upon thousands of people who manage to be constructive, frequently contributing editors and who manage not to run afoul of nearly every policy we have. He has had a huge number of second chances here, and he consistently manages to find a new boundary of civility and disruption to push. To top it off, after this block was in in place, he claimed to not understand how "I don't think you are practicing your religion correctly" (I paraphrase) is offensive. He is clearly trolling, and I urge you to seriously consider the message you will be sending if you reduce or lift this, his seventh block in a month.

Kind regards, Nandesuka 00:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, GTBacchus. This is a copy for you of a message I have just posted on Nandesuka's talk page:

I agree fully with GTBacchus, especially about the browbeating that Chooserr has received. I'm not keen on implementing punitive blocks, but I will point out that nobody seems to have thought it was necessary to block people who were following him around Wikipedia, calling him a "mindless troll", etc. I've already left a message on his talk page about this matter; you may have seen it.[1] I'm not going to try to overrule you, but I think you need to take into account the way he has been treated. He has been reverted with snide remarks when reverting wasn't at all necessary (and I admit it often is necessary). He has been sneered at, harassed, and followed round Wikipedia. I hope you will consider reducing this block. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 01:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the very thoughtful post you made on WP:AN/I. While I agree that Chooserr's remark was completely inappropriate, it's very nice to see another administrator trying to be fair, especially since you disagree with him about a lot. I can tell that post must have cost a fair bit of your time, too. If I weren't so busy I'd go hunting for a suitable barnstar, but I'm not very experienced in giving them. Maybe when I've finished my assignments! And by the way, I fully support the idea of reducing the block to four days. You may have noticed that he allowed me to remove from his user page the list of Wikipedians that he's watching. Sorry for spelling your name incorrectly above. I've corrected it. Cheers, AnnH ^(talk) 10:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding "my" semicolon box — absolutely. I'm sure you realize that nothing is "mine" on Wikipedia. In fact, I stole some of my boxes (and then modified them) from other users. Anyway, you're more than welcome to use it, or (in case I ever modify the colour to one you don't like) to create a User:GTBacchus/semi box and paste the whole source of User:Musical Linguist/semi into it. I envy you having a Latin box by the way. I hope to add one in the next few years, and to change my German 1 to German 2. AnnH ^(talk) 11:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Seattle Wikimeetup

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

Recent Changes Camp in Portland

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

War on Drugs comment

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

--SamAdams

Unitheism

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

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

Hey

GTBacchus,

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

Barnstar and antipopes

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

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

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

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

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

Unitheism

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

unitheism debate

Hi GT,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

The Socialist Phenomenon

About Charles Fourier--

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

The Utopian Socialists: Charles Fourier

---

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

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

Regards, Warren Farr

warren@unitheist.org

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

FACT1

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

Talking?

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

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

RFC reform

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

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

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

Humor

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

User:Conrad-14 year old socialist

I wanted to let you know that the editor hasn't responded to the message I left him, which linked him to the discussion at WP:ANI, here [2] . Since you were instrumental in bringing the issue to the attention of that notice board, would you now suggest that a short editing block may be warrented, under perhaps, WP:Point? I'll watch this space of the appropraiate ANI space for your reply. Regards, Hamster Sandwich 13:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Safe-sex

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

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

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

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

RE:Small request

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

Lowbrow.com

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

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

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

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

Talk: Safe Sex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Awareness

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

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

User:Benjamin Gatti

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

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

Condoms

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

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

Deletion of users boxes

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

Masturbation

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

Conrad

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

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

Hipocrite

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

Favor

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

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

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

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

Pov Warrior

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

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

Chooserr's block again

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

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

List of monarchs of Kush

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

Chooserr's back again

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

Talk:Proof that 22 over 7 exceeds π#Question

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

re: safe sex

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

Grelling-Nelson Paradox

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

Source for 1965 re-definition of pregnancy

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

Spelling

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

Thanks

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

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

Online_shopping_rewards

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

Reply

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

Pro-Lick

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

Yaaaaaaaaargh

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

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

Thank you

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

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

Re:rvv

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

Pro-lick

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

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

AGM-88 HARM Missile

Hi,

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

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

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

Tawkerbot2

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

Conrad-14 year old socialist

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

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

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

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

Re: Possible RfC

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for Pro-lick-- it looks like they may need more policing. I've noted he was blocked once already (according to his talk). Also, he seemed to be hostile to comments I left him on his talk[3]-- he removed them, which also seems to be a pattern. Nephron 06:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you help

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

Robert Hoyt

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

Rabid anti-abortionist?

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

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

Abortion

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

Sources

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

What are we talking about here, in specific?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

[4]

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) .