User talk:Equazcion/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Cry Little Sister

Hi. I noticed you removed a lot of the content I had spent hours researching from the Cry Little Sister page. I appreciate from your comments that you do not approve of YouTube or MySpace links. I apologise for this, since I really wasn't aware that this was a policy. I can easily amend these links to other sources that might meet with your approval. I simply chose those links because this is a page about music and if I were reading that article, I know I would certainly appreciate someone providing a link to enable me to hear the song I just read about. _♫ Яєd_xx_♪♫♪_♫♪^Talk 01:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for chopping up the article, but yeah as you surmised, youtube and myspace aren't reliable sources. A lot of that content can probably be re-added, but you'd need to find better sources to back it up. On another note: I notice your signature is transcluded. That's not really allowed, see Wikipedia:Signature#Transclusion of templates. You can get around this by subst'ing instead, for example: {{subst:User:Redxx/Signature}}. Sorry for all the criticism :) If you have any questions, feel to ask. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:58, 22 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Ambox skins

We are now deploying two new box types and CSS classes for the article message boxes. You can see them in MediaWiki:Common.css as "ambox-speedy" and "ambox-protection". If you have the time and feel the inclination: You might want to add those to the skin you made at Wikipedia:Ambox CSS classes/Skins.

--David Göthberg (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The Principal and the Pauper

I think I am going to nominate the page for FA status next week. Would you mind taking a look at the page and making any changes you feel are necessary? Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Images needed template in article space

Please comment on a new article space template at TfD Images needed. GregManninLB (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism

If you are interested in defending your edits and view in this article now that Igor is gone, please re-visit it. Life.temp (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Headers

Hi - I am sure you're trying to be helpful at Talk:Barack Obama and Talk: Hillary Rodham Clinton, but your edits to the headers have created problems and have been reverted by more than one of the regular editors on those pages, those who use the talk pages heavily. The "skip to toc" tag is an important navigation aid for those of us who use laptops that have smaller screens and need to move to the TOC quickly, so please stop removing it. As for shrinking some of the header items to small boxes, that's a mixed blessing - too many of those, and you end up encroaching on the text and that ends up using more space than the wide ones, so we left a few as small and reinstated others as full size so that now they do not move below the TOC. I also believe announcements about ongoing FACs and FARs are supposed to be on top of the page so that readers see them. Finally, please stop re-setting the TOC limit below 4 - often there are multiple levels of subheads that we need reflected in the TOC - this is more true for Obama, but often on Clinton as well. Would appreciate it if you would leave the headers essentially as they are - these are very active talk pages as you can see, and the editors who work on them extensively need to be able to navigate them easily. Thanks - if you have specific suggestions, why not leave a note on the talk page, or on the user talk pages of editors who've reverted your edits and we can talk about them - improvements are always welcome, but the set-up basically works now. Tvoz |talk 16:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I presume this refers to you. Have a nice day. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it, but thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:58, 23 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Pages I would like you to look at

Wikipedia is strictly buisness (mostly) so I am sending you this message for Wikipages in need.

Plain White T's needs a lot of help. It is a sketchy article.

8- inch floppy disc also needs help. There were a few notes that floppy disk was too long so I made a new article from part of that one.

From, --RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I requested deletion of the 8- inch floppy disc article -- Sorry, but that split wouldn't make much of a dent in the Floppy disk article. The entire History section is what's proposed for splitting, not the just the 8-inch section. That section alone is not so significant as to warrant its own article. Let me know if you have any questions. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:29, 28 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

I wasn't calling you or AQ a troll. See reply. Marskell (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. And I was disqualifying your statement by pointing out that neither of the two most recent people you ran off the article were trolls. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:49, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)

X-Files synopses

Thanks. There's actually more from season four, but the only reason I caught the ones I did was because I'm currently going through season four on DVD (I'm just now watching the full season). If you want to remove them now, go ahead, but I'll be removing them as I watch episodes. --fuzzy510 (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My reply

See WP:VPR#Possible "Did you mean " feature for my reply Bit Lordy (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks heaps for fixing that! I've been meaning to check what it had been changed for ages but have been really busy IRL and haven't had a chance. So thank you very much. :) Cheers, Sarah 02:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to be of service :) Equazcion •✗/C • 03:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation: Anti-Americanism

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Anti-Americanism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Life.temp (talk • contribs) 07:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment removal from BAG discussion

Please do not remove other users' comments from a discussion. Any member of the community is free to express their opinion. I would suggest you just ignore or talk with those who you do not agree with. KnightLago (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

third edit conflict - I didn't remove them, and it had nothing to do with a disagreement. See my comments on this at User talk:Maxim. And you just removed my comment, and reverted my edits as vandalism, both of which are incorrect. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Lord Bosie

hello why do you cancel our links on cruising for sex ??

we will contact wikipedia lord bosie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord bosie (talk • contribs)

You added multiple external links to your own website. See WP:COI, WP:SPAM, and WP:EL for information about why they were removed. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

tell us what is squirt.org ? commercial& advertisement what is cruisingforsex.com ? commercial& advertisement why dont you remove the links ? lord bosie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord bosie (talk • contribs) 08:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed your links because you are obviously affiliated with the site whose links you posted. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your website. Those other links might also not belong, but I haven't investigated them. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And for outside reference, this user is also 88.116.35.202 (talk · contribs), also see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/bosie.tv. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Wikipediatoolbarpreviewblack.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

How dare you call me a Nazi

Retract that vile attack at once. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What attack? Equazcion •✗/C • 15:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This is patently unacceptable. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I objected to the manner in which you spoke to me. I did not call you a nazi, and never would call anyone such a word. I was describing your tone, not you. Don't respond to a complaint of mine with a mere trumped-up complaint of your own, because I won't be responsive to it. If you'd like to apologize for the way you spoke to me, I'll apologize for characterizing your wording. If you'd like to strike your comment, I'll gladly strike mine. But this show of offense at my show of offense is just a false retaliatory response. I did not call you any name, whatsoever. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed Poll

Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed Proposal/Poll (talk)

When the page was split from the VP, I wasn't certain where to place your thoughts, and so added them to the talk page. Please feel free to either move them to where you wish, or further comment, or whatever. - jc37 23:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN

I have just sent you an email.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Virgin Killer

There, that should end our little disagreement, which was unfortunate seeing as how I quite liked the points you made on the deletion page. In all honesty I'm finding it quite hillarious that such an insignificant organisation as WND can cause such an effect as to cause two strangers to argue over something as silly as an image placement Acer (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the undo. In the future, that is the best way to alleviate concerns over participation in an edit war, which I considered obvious but perhaps should've suggested in retrospect. As I've said before, it doesn't take much to stir things up on Wikipedia -- you don't even need your own website. I've seen larger controversies started by much less in the past. It's the nature of the beast. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(Also on the topic of Virgin Killer) You said you were "disappointed" that I advocate speedy deletion of the image in question. Just to clarify: as you know, I believe strongly in the principle of rule by the community, and there is no way I would personally speedy-delete the image in these controversial circumstances, nor would I expect any other admin to. (Indeed, it would be bordering on an abuse of sysop tools.) I was just expressing my personal opinion on what should be done with the image, but I'm happy to abide by the community's decision (which thus far seems to be in favour of keeping). Walton^One 18:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you weren't about to do it yourself, but you did seem to be suggesting that the discussion be ignored in favor of... well, moral decency. I respect you as one of the wiser and more neutral admins on this site, Walton, but in this case, you seem to be showing a kind of almost religious extremity. I suppose we all have our buttons, and believe me when I say I've been there. There was a photo in the analingus article once upon a time that I wish I could erase from my memory -- I lobbied hard for it to be removed or at least hidden by default, but after everyone fought me on it, I realized I was merely applying my own moral standards and my immediate offensive response to a site that strictly forbids such judgments. Surely you must've come across similar situations in the past -- but perhaps a reminder is in order. Not to lecture you, but as a bit of advice, it might be best to back away from a subject about which you feel this strongly. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I feel strongly about it certainly does disqualify me from taking any admin action on it, but I don't see that it disqualifies me from expressing an opinion on the IfD. As an admin and editor, I take seriously my responsibility to be strictly neutral in editing encyclopedic content and in using the sysop tools; but as a human being I have an opinion, which it is, IMO, legitimate to express in discussion. As I said, I will abide by whatever consensus arises from the IfD (which the closing admin will, hopefully, evaluate in a fair and neutral way). But it remains my personal opinion that such an image doesn't belong on this site. While I don't disagree in principle with WP:NOTCENSORED, I think it is sometimes given too much weight; as a community, we sometimes seem to go out of our way to unnecessarily offend people just in order to shout out to the world that we reject censorship. That happened with the images of Mohammed controversy, and it seems to be happening here. Walton^One 18:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that you didn't have a right to express your opinion. The advice to back away was for your own good. Objecitng to an image on moral grounds is a losing battle on Wikipedia, so engaging in it just puts undue stress on yourself. As I said, I've been in your shoes before, and there even continue to be times when I'd like to make similar objections -- I've just learned, somewhat, that I'll only end up stressing myself out over something that can't possibly end up going my way. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the RFP. I was about to do the same. -- Chzz ► 18:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Peace
		For your sober and fair conduct throughout the Virgin Killer image discussion and despite (or perhaps because of) our initial disagreement. Most impressed Acer (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks man (or woman) :) Equazcion •✗/C • 22:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the awarding of this barnstar. You have been reasonable and conciliatory throughout this debate, despite having a strong opinion (which is diametrically opposed to mine). Walton^One 23:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, again :) Equazcion •✗/C • 23:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN

I replied to the post you made regarding Voped there. I hope what I said there explains it, and I apologize if I did the wrong thing in this case. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 08:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I replied there. No need to apologize at all. The email just confused me, that's all. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

question about oldcfdfull

Please check my comment on creating a template only for user category discussions [1] --Enric Naval (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I responded there. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

?

I was a bit surprised to see your name turn red on a page history. While I do try to tell people to not sweat things on Wikipedia, and if it's getting in the way of things then one should just take a break (even if that break is indefinite), I still hope to see you around some time. I enjoyed working with you, and hope to do so in the future. -- Ned Scott 06:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is an indefinite break. I realized recently that participating here is sort of like Springer, only interactive and never-ending. Nothing ever gets solved because no one's in charge, and you can only ever hope to find new battles to pile on to your stack while still struggling with the old ones. It all becomes clearer once you step back and just observe for a while. Editing became more of an addiction for me than a hobby, and I think the same is true for most of you. Unless you really can't possibly be doing anything more productive with your time, my advice to everyone is to quit. And take a moment to really consider that question. I too thought I was doing something remotely important, for the good of humanity (or something), but I now consider that a delusion (of grandeur). In real life no one gives a rat's ass what you do here. You spend time here for the same reason people surf facebook and youtube, though you may pretend you're better than them, which is a thought process this place is designed to facilitate. It's dangerous that way; you get all the addictive properties of other sites, but none of the guilt. You can't look down on yourself quite as much, because you think you're being productive, providing a service to the world. But this is really just another way to waste time. Stop fooling yourselves. You're all basically just a bunch of myspace junkies. Try not to take offense. I'm trying to do you all a favor. Even if you only spend an hour a day here (and for most of you I think it's much more than that), use it to call a relative or take a bike ride. It'll be a much better use of your time. Good luck. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:27, 28 Jun 2008 (UTC)

While I too have gotten (somewhat) disenchanted with Wikipedia, it is still a very useful thing, and getting more so, though perhaps less quickly than it once did. It has its shortcomings, and its wannabe tyrants, but the fact remains that Wikipedia has only become a very useful thing thanks to its junkies.

Nonetheless, if you find yourself spending most of your time here jawing at others and trying to make sure the sand is arranged just so, yes, there are better things to do with your time. It was a pleasure working with you, and have fun on the bike.--Father Goose (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What Father Goose said. It's great that you've been able to come to this revelation, but don't let the bitterness sway the reality distortion simply in the other direction. In other words, yeah it's pretty much just an addiction, and we're not changing the world, but it's not all bad ;)-- Ned Scott 06:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia toolbar, still going?

Hello,

First, great job at building the wikipedia toolbar. I'm amazed that Wikipedia themselves don't release an official one for Firefox. I assume you're probably the only person at the moment maintaining the add-on (assuming you are still actively maintaining it!) I'm really interested in assisting with the development of the toolbar.

I have a lot of ideas for things that could be done to improve the toolbar... Unfortunately I'm not a programmer by any means (aside from the small perl or bash script here and there) and of course coming up with ideas is the easy part, actually coding them is where the real work is.

What I would like to assist with is the visual appeal of the toolbar, namely creating icons for the buttons & menus. I don't know if this is being worked on yet, but if not I'd be happy to develop some graphic icons that could be placed beside the words for each of the buttons.

Let me know if you would like my help!

Thanks.

Jeffmoon (talk) 02:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeff;

I'm equally amazed. I've tried to get some support for the toolbar, but haven't seen any interest from anyone, let alone those who might have the resources to help. All the more bewildering when you take a look at my download counters on the various download pages.

I'm officially out of Wikipedia, although I pop in here and there to make corrections when I see them, and I try to keep the toolbar updated at least as far as compatibility with the latest Firefox versions. Other than that, I'm not actively developing it. This is mainly because I don't know what the hell I'm doing, and consequently, even making little changes like adding an icon here and there takes longer than you might imagine. Plus as you can see by my little rant above, I'm not that interested in Wikipedia at the moment.

Although I do still think the toolbar would be valuable to Wikipedia, and I appreciate your offer, I'm afraid it'll have to wait until someone more willing and able comes along.

Equazcion •✗/C • 06:13, 4 Aug 2008 (UTC)

Sig

Can I use the code on another wiki? This is the site if you were wondering. ~~ Frvwfr2 (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying, but if you just want to use my signature code? Sure go for it. To get the timestamps to work you need the actual code at user:equazcion/s.Equazcion •✗/C • 20:32, 23 Aug 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Yeah, just planning to copy the code and put my name etc. in for it. ~~ Frvwfr2 (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Your userpage

Was recently (re) deleted by me. Someone else recreated it, something about "precision sensors"? Not sure, but not recreated by you, so anyway, it's a redlink again...Keeper ǀ 76 19:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:FaviconNew32.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:FaviconNew32.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. O sama K^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 18:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:FaviconNew.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:FaviconNew.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. O sama K^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 18:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Idea

We've been working on your idea, here and think we have a good template. Please take a look. -- Suntag ☼ 06:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

To do list removed

Why did you remove the to do list at Talk:Wikipedia [2] ? This is an important part of the talk page and you never even bothered to leave an edit summary! Richard001 (talk) 02:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember why I removed it. Probably because it was so long and it pisses me off when I have to scroll down three page lengths to get to the actual "talking" part of the "talk page". I don't concern myself with such things anymore though, so you could paste in the complete text of War & Peace there if you like, and I wouldn't argue. Good luck. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:15, 26 Oct 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that can be easily remedied... We just need 'to do' to be hideable. I'll see if I can get something done. Richard001 (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately if it were easy I think we would've seen it already. From my template-fiddling days I seem to remember several of us tried to do that, but it never worked. I think the collapsible table class was completely different from the todo table class and they didn't play well together. A collapsible todo probably would require writing an entirely new class and fiddling with some of the javascript. Good luck though. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:57, 29 Oct 2008 (UTC)

minor problem

Hi. I notice that your Equazcion/sandbox7 is being categorised by the templates. Not a big problem, but it is the sole member of one. cygnis insignis 07:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Equazcion/sandbox7

This page is appearing in WP:Australia and WP:Banksia assessment categories, I have either removed or add <-- Commented out --> as appropriate the WP:Banksia banner to remove it from the categories. Gnan garra 13:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's causing problems I think it's safe to delete the entire page. It was just a visual aid for a TfD that's long closed. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:07, 28 Oct 2008 (UTC)

Done thanks for that. Gnan garra 23:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Warning archive notice

Template:Warning archive notice has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 05:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The Venus Project

It appears my edits to The Venus Project have been repeatedly reverted. Please can we discuss this on the article talk page before further reverts, as I requested earlier? Just a friendly suggestion to avoid any conflict, regards Widefox (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

But of course. I have replied to each of your statements at that talk page, and eagerly await your response(s). Civilly yours, Equazcion •✗/C • 17:36, 30 Nov 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, discuss before revert? Thank you Widefox (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh trust me, I'm trying. And the same goes for you sir. If you want to discuss before reverting, then discuss before reverting, rather than demanding that of others while you continue to revert. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:52, 3 Dec 2008 (UTC)

while I am trying to advance the topic in the next few minutes, please just give me a few minutes without reverting my edit, please? Widefox (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I left you a nice big response on the talk page and your reaction is to revert with an edit summary that I should stop reverting you. You're very funny. I'd be amused if I weren't involved. I'm not sure what "advance the topic" means, but if in the language you speak it means to spend time making multiple consecutive edits to an article, then I'll give you time and lay off for a while. Do your damage and I'll have a look later. Just be sure to respond on the talk page. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:29, 3 Dec 2008 (UTC)

Oh and kindly let me know when you're done editing the article, so I can "advance the topic" as I see fit too. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:34, 3 Dec 2008 (UTC)

Telling me that you're ignoring my comments doesn't count as a response. You're really an incredible specimen. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:43, 3 Dec 2008 (UTC)

I have finished adding refs for the corporation. Removing well referenced material is considered vandalism, as I'm sure you know already, but just a heads-up, ok. I am keen now to draw a line under this edit-war, and consider it healthy if we could both disengage from this article. Does that sound ok to you Equazcion? regards Widefox (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll probably keep the refs but the material is going to its own section, just as you chose to do so adamantly with "publicity". See the talk page for more. And no I'm not disengaging from the article, at least not yet. If you wanted to disengage you should have done it, rather than asking me to do so after you got in the last edit. You're much too funny. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:17, 3 Dec 2008 (UTC)

repeating this from the talk page...please check your facts before making more accusations,,,I did not remove mention of donation/merchandise as shown by this [3] . You are well out of order with your personal attacks. I ask you again to decease, thank you Widefox (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't make any personal attacks. A personal attack would be if I called you a moron, which I didn't do. I did question your motives, though, which you did as well, for all intents and purposes. You seem to think I have an interest in promoting the topic, and I don't. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:03, 4 Dec 2008 (UTC)

E(Electronic)Cigarette belongs in Cannabis smoking article

- ===E-cigarette===

-

- This product, developed in China, contains a rechargeable battery and a heating element which, when a user draws on the mouthpiece end, vaporizes (in most brands) flavored liquid nicotine from an insertable cartridge. Smokers on websites report success in eliminating a cigarette smoking habit. Liquid THC, if available, can be loaded into the cartridge instead of nicotine, providing cannabis users with benefits similar to a vaporizer at lower initial price.

I am concerned that you consider the E-cigarette, to which you have given much attention, "unrelated" to the issue of cannabis smoking. True, the idea is not widely disseminated so far. However, persons, including juveniles, who consult the "Cannabis smoking" article in order to find out "how to do it", probably the vast majority, may well benefit from knowing about any and every alternative to the hot-burning overdose "joint" and especially the disastrous custom, prevalent in some places including Europe, of mixing cannabis with tobacco resulting in possibly millions of cases of nicotine addiction and a share of the 5.4 million deaths per year attributed to cigarette smoking by the WHO (See Feb. 7, 2008 Press Conference).

Though I have no stake in any companies making either product I am disappointed by the failure of the WHO to endorse the use of either E-cigarette or Snus as a safer alternative to cigarette smoking, and feel that even a mention in the Wikipedia is admissible means of urging them to think the matter through more adequately. My thought is that given the poor results reported for each particular smoking-cessation remedy, including patch, gum, hypnosis etc., the correct strategy is to encourage would-be quitters to try a multi-front approach, trying numerous available methods simultaneously if necessary, even including substituting cannabis, the illegality of which represents a payback from governments whose budgets are heavily dependent on cigarette tax revenues (an example: Pakistan 10%).

Even if there is no company anywhere currently loading THC into cartridges for use in an E-cigarette, mentioning this option in the "Cannabis smoking" article could lead to a demand which would bring about such a practice and eventually save millions of lives. I wish to remind you of a Wikipedia rule, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and a slogan used last year at fund-raising time, "Help Wikipedia change the world!" In respect to tobacco, business-as-usual as we know it today amounts to the no. 1 genocide in the history of the human race.Tokerdesigner (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Ignore all rules" to benefit the article as much as possible -- not humanity. A common theme among Wikipedia's guidelines is that decisions of inclusion shouldn't be made based on how well they'll benefit the world. If that were the case, we'd allow instructions (WP:NOT#Guide) and things like unsourced safety precautions. The goal however is verifiability and accuracy. Claiming that electronic cigarettes are used as an alternative to marijuana is the very definition of original research, an unverified and inaccurate claim. If your top concern is public safety and activism, Wikipedia isn't the place to do it. We don't aim to change things here. We aim to accurately report the way things already are.

I agree though, that it would be nice if government agencies would make some sort of acknowledgment of the technology and devote some resources to at least researching its safety and effectiveness as a smoke substitute. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:17, 30 Dec 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that electronic cigarettes are used as an alternative to marijuana is the very definition of original research, an unverified and inaccurate claim. If your top concern is public safety and activism, Wikipedia isn't the place to do it. We don't aim to change things here.

1. Clarification: the deleted paragraph didn't inaccurately claim e-cigs are used as an alternative to marijuana but only, based on statements I read on a website, that they can be used as an alternative to smoking it (by putting cannabinol in the cartridge. You could also put in menthol, olive oil, flax seed oil etc.).

2. I can't say you're wrong about changing the world etc., evidently the rogue public relations department hung out that "change the world" slogan without consulting any

WP:rules first.

3. As I stated previously, the title "Cannabis smoking" at the head of Google, Yahoo, IE etc. implies an instruction service. Its location there also indicates the article is the most-consulted source on the planet as to how (or how not) to smoke cannabis, thus anyone interested in changing the present disastrous smoking/health situation worldwide would forgiveably be enticed to try to insert their ideas into the said Wikipedia article.

4. One service a fastidious fact-checker could now do is to track down all the interconnections between the cigarette industry and those government agencies ("It's the taxes, stupid") which are dragging their feet on researching substitutes for (a) smoking (including e-cig.), (b) tobacco (including cannabis).Tokerdesigner (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Slogans are intended to be short and memorable, not clear and binding. Meaning they're open to interpretation, and further, they don't have much to do with practical day-to-day operations. Even if you're to take the slogans to heart and use them to make content decisions (which there's no reason to do since we have more extensive rules already in the form of our guidelines), Wikipedia's slogans usually have something to do with changing the world through the increased availability of knowledge -- not by tailoring the information we provide to what would best affect change in the world.

If you read something on a reliable website that said electronic cigarettes can be used as an alternative to cannabis smoke, feel free to replace that information along with a source.

"anyone interested in changing the present disastrous smoking/health situation worldwide would forgiveably be enticed to try to insert their ideas into the said Wikipedia article" -- Sure we forgive them for being enticed, but content actually inserted for that reason is removed. Again, Wikipedia's articles aren't the place to try and change the present situation, no matter how disasterous one might consider it. It's especially not the place to present new ideas -- that's a fundamental guiding principal of this place. If you have new ideas, there are other places to do that -- make a website, write a blog, or post to a forum. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:34, 30 Dec 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Splash.gif

An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Splash.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC) --Skier Dude (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Gamucci 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Gamucci 1.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Gamucci 2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Gamucci 2.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Reloading e-cigarette cartridges

With your last edit of the e-cigarette article you have made my case. However I am here including http://e-cig.com/shopping/shopexd.asp?id=602 which describes an existing procedure for reloading an empty cartridge. The only missing "ingredient" is liquid cannabinol itself, as a replacement for the nicotine and other recipes now offered by various companies. Perhaps it will now be necessary to "produce" the facts needed to meet the standard you cite for inclusion in Wikipedia's Cannabis smoking article, i.e. by alerting companies to the business opportunity, and also by reminding the US-NIDA (National Institute on "Drug Abuse"), and its new head appointed by Obama, that its present truly abusive practice of furnishing cannabis to a select list of medical patients in the form of huge hot-burning 900-mg. cigarettes is now historically replaceable.Tokerdesigner (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

My edits to the e-cig article were meant to present the facts, not to influence public opinion. Much of the e-cigarette article is unsourced, which is a problem, but none of it is political opinion or an attempt at influencing the public. You'll notice that I didn't undo the many other unsourced edits you've made to cannabis-related articles, because I realize that although you didn't include sources, the facts you added could be verifiable. Same with the e-cig article. The lack of sources is again still a problem, but at least it presents accurate info about how e-cigs are used, and that'll have to do for now since no reliable sources exist yet to verify. But this thing about e-cigs and cannabis — you just made it up. It's not even remotely verifiable. It's a new idea you have, and doesn't represent current usage at all. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:48, 17 Jan 2009 (UTC)

Biome Template

Check on Biome for the 14 Terrestrial Biomes, 12 Aquatic Biomes, and the Coastal/Shelf Marine Biomes of Global 200 WWF. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Nemo bis

Why have you mass-reverted the contributions of User:Nemo bis? -- Gurch (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

None of the links he added worked (at least not for me). He seemed to be trying to interwiki to a site that isn't linkable that way. Try the links he added and let me know what happens. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:35, 3 Feb 2009 (UTC)

But it is linkable in that way: MeatBall:AboutThisSite. The links work fine for me -- Gurch (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I think I was trying to click them in the diff screen -- that doesn't work, for some reason. I'll go mass-revert myself now. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:42, 3 Feb 2009 (UTC)

You mean the page content shown below the diff, or the diff itself? They seem to work in page content for me. Obviously they don't work in the actual diffs because they're not links there -- Gurch (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The diff itself. Link code displayed in diff screens do function as links. Try it :) Equazcion •✗/C • 23:01, 3 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm I just tried that in IE without logging in and it didn't work. This could be a monobook.js addon or firefox extension that's doing it for me. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:06, 3 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I re-reverted one of these links here before finding this discussion. The link works fine, but I am not convinced that such a link to the procedures and policies of another wiki is especially useful in principle. Feel free to revert me if you disagree. Samuel Robbins (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Data required

Hi,

I made a proposal here and I was wondering if you are able to obtain the relevant data. Best --DFS454 (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I posted a response, but I don't know how to get the data mentioned there, sorry. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:03, 5 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for a well thought out comment

So few people when looking at the stats proposal have addressed the proposal. Instead they have demonstrated their technical literacy. You have addressed the matter of consensus building towards desire or otherwise. I hope people will do the same as you, whether for or against the proposal. What matters is that we choose what we wish to happen, not that we say "it is (or is not) possible". Consensus takes matters forwards. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've hit that unfortunate "wall of geeks" before too, people so eager to speak techno-babble that they don't actually think about how useful (or not) a proposal might be. I had proposed the "did you mean...?" feature for Wikipedia's search a while ago, and everyone immediately said it couldn't be done, for many of the same reasons they're giving against your proposal -- and now "did you mean" has been implemented. There's also the other common shoot-down, that goes something like, "Why do this when everything already works fine the way it is?" Some people have no imagination. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:17, 5 Feb 2009 (UTC)

They do mean well, I am sure of it. But the only thing that stops things being done is cost. if we want a thing and can make a case for it then the Foundation has to prioritise and deploy its resources to our benefit. But I think some folk like to be "nay-sayers".

I don't mind of the consensus, the true consensus, goes against my proposal. All that will prove is that I was incorrect in my assessment of the need. And that, while personally annoying, is perfectly fine.

I want to take all steps sensible to take in order to give this sufficient time for folk to understand it and give an emotional opinion. I'm sure I have no need to ask, I simply hope you will keep an eye on it, too, to ensure it gets a fair hearing and doesn't get swamped with technobabble.

And if it is, in the end,, rejected, then so be it.

I like the "did you mean" feature. It adds to user friendliness. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Perenial proposal-Did you mean?

Who eventually did implement this? How did it happen?--DFS454 (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I had suggested it, and seen others suggest it, but I was on a break from Wikipedia when it actually happened, apparently, cause when I came back it was there. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:46, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Hey I found out when it was implemented see this. Apparently it was when they moved the servers. DFS454 (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks :) Equazcion •✗/C • 12:52, 14 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Archiving in Tobacco smoking

The talk page seems a little messy with the large messagebox in the first section. In my opinion it would be more effective to simply add an archive box to the right with a text-search feature in the lead (such as that in Talk:Global warming). ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I didn't make that section, I just made it into a message box. Your idea sounds fine. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:01, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artivist Film Festival & Awards

You might like to be made aware: I've re-closed this discussion as delete. - brenneman 13:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ack, sorry, wrong editor. Too many windows open. Not that you wouldn't want to know as well... *shakes head at self*
brenneman 13:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, but as long as you brought it up, I'm planning to take that to DRV. If you want to argue about it here first (as the instructions suggest we should do before going to DRV), I'm up for it. Let me know. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:11, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Yes yes, talk is good. It bears saying that as one of the principle architects of the current deletion review set-up, I take no umbrage at having my decisions gone over. I haven't even deleted the article yet, so while you're explaining what you feel I did wrong I'll put an {{underreview}} template on it instead of deleting. - brenneman 13:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. The problem I have is that I think your closure exhibits an over-adherence to the "letter of the law" per se, rather than its spirit. The notability policy is important to make sure that in most cases things that aren't important are easily identified and removed. However the specific criteria listed there aren't as important as making an overall judgment of a topic's importance. This particular topic might not have received coverage that is considered significant enough by the policy, but, for lack of better words, it just as easily could have, and arguably will in the future. The organization's board of directors consists of big names in entertainment and government, the event is attended regularly by many notable people, and every time it's held, Variety magazine (a respected staple of the Hollywood movie industry) posts an article about it. It seems to be an important part of the industry, or else it wouldn't garner that kind of attention. The question I ask during a deletion is, does this help or hurt the encyclopedia, and I feel that in this case it hurts. This is a topic that people would consider important and worthy of an encyclopedia article, whether or not it happens to meet our specific technical criteria -- and as the AfD demonstrates, most of the editors involved seem to agree there. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:33, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Oik. Did you purposefully craft an opening sentance that gets me right in the gills? You've summarised two years worth of the kind of flak I got when I regularly closed afds into twenty-five words or less. ^_^ But enough about me...

In the end this comes down to sources though. The Vanity articles that were presented in the debate were very small, and despite them not being under the heading "press release" they certainly appeared to be so. If there were other sources not presented, that would of course have changed my close. Do you have some links that support the attendees? - brenneman 13:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any sources offhand to support the attendees claim. The claim is based on red carpet photos from the event. The individual articles in Variety aren't any longer than the ones you've seen, I imagine, however the regularity of the mentions is what's significant. If the only thing that will convince you is an individual example of longer coverage ("it comes down to sources"), then there's no point is arguing, because it is that particular staunch dependence that I protest. I apologize if my opening sentence offended you, I don't know you from before this encounter so I wouldn't have known how to craft a sentence that summarized your past flak :) Equazcion •✗/C • 14:03, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Please no apologies, I'm not that easily offended. It just means that I've not learned anything over the last few years...

Yes, we're probably not going to reach a middle ground, it appears, although I appreciate you taking the time to discuss it with me. I'll knock up an entry at WP:DRV and bring a link back in a bucket. - brenneman 14:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It's here. I tried to be bland, but sometimes one can't see the mote or however that quote goes. If you have any objections to the language, let me know and I'm happy to reword. - brenneman

No objections at all, it looks fine to me. Thanks for your continued even-headedness :) Equazcion •✗/C • 14:23, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)

inre: User:MichaelQSchmidt/Artivist Film Festival & Awards. Shall you keep the histories of the page in one of your workspaces, or shall I ask for them over at mine? I think with the two of working independently on the same "problems" we may well end up with an article better than either of us had hoped. I already borrowed User:MichaelQSchmidt/Zeitgeist: Addendum, and made myself a note to myself that your copy has the histories of that one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by your question. Note that I haven't userfied the history of the Festival article, only the last revision, and it's in your userspace, not mine. I'm not an admin so I can't move the complete history of the article to your userspace since it's currently protected. You'd have to wait for the DRV to close, and if the article does end up being deleted, an admin can restore the history to your userspace. I hope that answers your question but if not feel free to clarify. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:58, 9 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Artivist logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Artivist logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh I was just interested

My logic says "now is the time to build a consensus to see if more work is worthwhile", you see. And I wanted to see what I was dealing with. Now I know. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

firefox x wikipedia toolbar

i'm wonderwing if you or someone else is able to update this toolbar , more useful as far as i can notice (i know it's more useful 'cause i used it in my older firefox versions). thanks;)))) --joana (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about that toolbar, but as far as I can see from the pictures and feature list, most of its stuff is available already in the little editing toolbar that show up whenever you edit a page. I could be wrong. But no I haven't made any attempt at updating it, nor do I plan to. Sorry. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:11, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macula (planetary geology)

Merge closes default to keep. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:04, 13 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Moved from WP:VPR

- Is that their purpose? I wasn't aware of that. In that case I propose doing away with all maintenance tags since we shouldn't be badgering people into improving articles, but rather kindly encouraging them. But since I disagree with your assessment altogether anyway, I'm gonna say offering the option to hide these purely informative notices is a good idea. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:05, 14 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  - "Nature" would be a better term. And "badgering people into improving articles"? Saying that there are problems in articles is now "badgering"? I hope it was misworded, or else it just sounds ridiculous. —kur ykh 00:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    - No of course not. "Saying" there are problems in articles is not badgering, which is my point. What is badgering is being "obtrusive and annoying" until people "fix the problems" if they "don't want the tags". I don't disagree that the tags should be there. However we do seem to be in disagreement on their intended method of coercion. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:43, 14 Feb 2009 (UTC)
      - You seem to be worrying about the aesthetics of an article that already has problems. This proposal is the equivalence of obscuring the sight of an open wound surgery by throwing layers of black cloth over it. It doesn't help anything and anyone except give a false sense of cleanliness despite the festering problems underneath. —kur ykh 00:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
        Who cares? I'm not worried. I'm in favor of offering options. Some people might just want to read, without editorial interest. You might want to wave the red flag at readers, with no consideration for whether they want to see it or not. But many just aren't interested, and would rather not see a bunch of big notices informing them of other people's subjective opinions about the problems an article might have. Hell even as a frequent editor I don't care that much about them the majority of the time. Most articles need work. I know that. It's a problem that will always be there. I don't need it constantly waved in my face. When I care to see, I'll look. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:37, 14 Feb 2009 (UTC)
        The tags serve as reminders of the poor state of articles, and simultaneously serve as invitations to improve, not as your nonsensical notion of "forcing" readers to improve. "Who cares?" What kind of attitude is that of an encyclopedia? That readers are by default too lazy to help and that we shouldn't bother trying to get them on board and help us? That we are willing to hide the problems in our articles simply so it looks clean and nice? And thanks for implicitly casting my opinion as "anti-choice"; it's very nice of you. —kur ykh 02:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
        "Trying", yes. Badgering, no. You said these notices are meant to be annoying and obtrusive. Well let's get right down to that. Since there is the inescapable perpetual truth that at any given time most articles are going to have issues, are you in favor of most of Wikipedia's articles having annoying and obtrusive stuff in them -- forever? If so then argument over -- we can agree to disagree. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:19, 14 Feb 2009 (UTC)
        "Forever"? If someone, who might be the reader would took notice of the tag, improves it, the tag will be gone. You're reinforcing my point here. —kur ykh 02:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
        Yes, forever. Not that a single article will have tag forever, since of course, as you astutely point out, once fixed the tag is gone. But once again: Forever, as in, for the majority of articles at any given time having issues. Not always the same articles, mind you. But at any time most articles will have issues. At any given time (key point, hence the repetition). Therefore, forever and ever, and ever and ever, whenever someone looks at an article on Wikipedia, chances are they will be looking at an annoying and obtrusive notice. I hope I've at least cleared up any confusion. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:51, 14 Feb 2009 (UTC)
        Well, if all of these problems are corrected, then that would answer your question even better, would it? How is hiding the problem going to help anyone? I'm not sure you're on topic here, or if it is just the wording. —kur ykh 02:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
        So you're saying there will come a point where most articles on Wikipedia will have no issues. That article issues are a finite resource and once we take care of one, it's gone for good, and we can keep going til we wipe 'em out, at least mostly. I have to disagree there. It's a perpetual problem, like I said. You fix one and another pops up somewhere else. There will always be issues in the majority of articles. Though we can agree to disagree there as well. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:01, 14 Feb 2009 (UTC)
        Your point on perpetual improvement is fair. There is always room for improvement. But it is scrutiny and criticism brings improvement, not a false sense of aesthetics. If there is need for improvement there will be tags and people improving the tagged articles. Hiding the tags does not do anyone any good. And you have yet to respond to that point. —kur ykh 03:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
        Providing the option to hide the tags doesn't do YOU any good. It does me plenty of good, cause sometimes I don't wanna see 'em, and evidently that's the case for some other people too. If you like them there all the time, that's cool. I don't see why oppose the option for the rest of us though. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:46, 14 Feb 2009 (UTC)
        I don't understand your constant need to personalize the debate; I am merely offering my opinion, yet you're casting it as if I'm emotionally traumatized. And you are still ignorant of the point of these tags, which is to tell people the article has problems. Yes, they are annoying; that's the point. Stop dressing up rotting carcasses in flamboyant clothing; it's not a choice issue, but an encyclopedic issue. —kur ykh 06:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
        
        And "badgering"? Still that argument? Is a notice now "badgering"? Is adding a tag listing grave problems in an article now "badgering"? Is saying, "this article has problems; help us fix" now "badgering"? Is asking readers to take the article with a pinch of salt due to incompleteness or lack of neutrality now "badgering"? Really? Is this what we have come down to, a pandering to unearthly and nonexistent hypersensitivity? —kur ykh 02:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
        Not "we". Just you. You said "annoying and obtrusive" notices... to describe the motivation of people to fix their articles. If I tell you your wallpaper sucks when you ask me for my opinion, that's informative. If I keep telling you your wallpaper sucks until you get so annoyed with me that you'll change your wallpaper just to shut me up, that's badgering. Badgering is a description of your view on article maintenance notices. If not, then tell me how so, please. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:58, 14 Feb 2009 (UTC)
        Bad analogy, bad interpretation, and bad argument. About the wallpaper thing: articles are not wallpaper. They are not there for decoration; they are the essence of why we are here. A better analogy would be like a string quartet playing in that same room with your hypothetical wallpaper. I have every right to criticize that string quartet when warranted and offer tips on how to improve, on a comment card or in an art magazine or whatever. Usually, they will improve their playing, and I would take back my criticisms and praise them.
        
        Second thing. Read what I said again: "The very purpose of the cleanup tags is to be obtrusive and annoying"; perhaps I chronically exaggerate when I talk (maybe that's causing confusion), but in no way was I "describ[ing] the motivation of people to fix their articles." Are you now accusing me of calling people lazy? Because, if that is true, then the answer is an emphatic no, and I suggest you take another path with your argument. —kur ykh 03:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

break 1

←I don't think I even implied such a thing... it's possible; I'd have to think about it. But now that you brought it up -- "That readers are by default too lazy to help and that we shouldn't bother trying to get them on board and help us?". You said that above. Hey maybe readers are lazy, but they're entitled to be, without us annoying them into changing. Anyhoo, the analogy was only meant to help define the word, not be taken that literally. The point is that you're okay with trying to get people to improve articles through operating on their desire to not have something undesireable on the page. I'm not okay with that. I'm of the opinion that people need only be informed of issues, and then be allowed to do what they wish unobstructed. You seem to feel otherwise. I'm gonna try and say it another way: There are two ways to motivate someone to do something.

One way is to tell them the issue so that they'll hopefully care about it the same way you do and then go about fixing it, with your same goal in mind. That's how I view maintenance notices. I want to fix articles because I care about having the most accurate information possible out there. With maintenance notices, I hope to impart that same goal on others.
The second way to motivate someone is to create something undesireable for them, with the promise that if they do what you want, that thing will go away. You want maintenance notices to stay big and obstructive so that people will be motivated to fix articles in order to get rid of them. You want to get more people involved than the mere number who actually share your goal of building a better encyclopedia. You want to motivate the people who'll pitch in just cause they want the big ugly notices gone.

I hope at least that clarifies the difference in our opinions. If I got your view wrong, then please explain to me why allowing people to hide/show these notices at their will would be a bad thing. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:43, 14 Feb 2009 (UTC)

"That readers are by default too lazy to help and that we shouldn't bother trying to get them on board and help us?": you are taking my quotes out of context again and spinning them into meanings I never inferred. And we are not "annoying" them; I'm sorry asking for help to improve the encyclopedia has now become an annoying enterprise. I'm sorry that telling people articles have problems is now unsightly and unclean. Another thing: you're creating a false dichotomy that tags that cannot be hidden are inherently undesirable and the bane of all evil, that they are intrusive and "badger" the reader (your words, not mine) into submission, that we intend to punish every person who comes by with a tag saying "this section has problems; please help." That is ridiculous. Seriously, enough of trying to obfuscate our problems and sweep them under the rug with a click. Enough of this ridiculous worrying over the aesthetics of problematic articles. Enough of this trying-to-look-good-but-only-covers-the-crap mentality and impression this proposal brings. Let's get to what we are here for: to write and improve a high quality and accurate encyclopedia, with openness, reception to criticism, and willingness to act and correct with faced with problems. —kur ykh 06:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"And we are not 'annoying' them" -- from this comment. "Yes, they are annoying; that's the point." -- What you just said further above. Pardon me for misunderstanding once again, but those seem like contradictory statements. I appreciate your continued patience while I struggle to understand what exactly your position is. You don't need to continue trying if you don't want to. I just don't agree that we should be using... a manner of encouragement that involves using tags whose point are to annoy people... is that better? Did I get it right that time, or am I still obfuscating your message? Equazcion •✗/C • 06:41, 14 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify: they are not to annoy as to "badger", but annoy as to not be hidden entirely. I hope that clarifies things. And I don't believe in shunting this discussion aside; people need to see all views before them, and this discussion is a good example of that. —kur ykh 06:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly, perhaps I should use another word. —kur ykh 07:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Equazcion, when you engage in discussion, please don't keep saying that people can bow out of the discussion if they want to; it sounds extremely condescending. I know that's not what you meant, but it comes across as that. —kur ykh 07:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make too much sense, in my head at least. They aren't meant to badger, just annoy. And only annoy as in, to not hide? What the heck does that mean? If people are annoyed by them, what is the point in that? We want to annoy people because... why? (post edit conflict): If annoy was the wrong word, but people find them annoying anyway, is there still harm in allowing people to hide them? Why or why not? Equazcion •✗/C • 07:02, 14 Feb 2009 (UTC)

You're saying they are annoying in the sense that they "badger". I was contradicting that. "Annoy" and "badger" are ultimately different words. I'm saying that they are annoying in the sense that they are glaring but serve as useful reminders and invitations to help us improve. Have I explained thoroughly, or are we still talking past each other? —kur ykh 07:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm just saying they're annoying. Badgering was the word I used to describe what (I had thought...?) you were saying. So again, if they annoy people, as in, "Hey, I like Wikipedia, but these banners seem to be on most of the pages I visit, and I either don't care about improving articles or I do care but don't need to be reminded all the time, I wish I could just turn 'em off temporarily, or even permanently"... then what is wrong with letting people do that? "Invitations" are supposed to be declinable. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:37, 14 Feb 2009 (UTC)

They don't solely serve as invitations for new people. They also serve as reminders for editors like us to improve articles also. And, if I may invoke a psychology argument, just because one may be disinclined to improve now does not preclude the inclination to do so later, and the tags help in engaging us when we are so inclined. Hidden tags cannot do such. —kur ykh 07:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, but if a person decides that they don't want their phyches further influenced, and just want the notices gone, I think we should let them rather than make the decision for them. It's unfriendly. It's annoying. Why not give people a choice if they want it? Sorry for implying that you're "anti-choice", since that seems to offend you, but... I'm suggesting offering the choice and you're against offering the choice. So it's kinda difficult to avoid making that implication. I don't understand what makes you think that denying people that choice isn't just plain being a dick, to borrow from the very well-put rationale of the last voter at the VPR discussion, which I hope you read. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:52, 14 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing: are the people being "annoyed" in your definition annoyed at the sheer size, the constantly presented message, or the mere existence of the boxes? I would still oppose the total hiding of the boxes, but a "minimizing" I can support. —kur ykh 07:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Size mostly, is my understanding. They're big freakin' banners. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:58, 14 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was a pointless argument between us. —kur ykh 07:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If you'd be fine with compacting, while not with completely hiding, you should say so at the original VPR discussion. Really, it seems you're not totally opposed to the spirit of the proposal in general, which is just to allow people the option to get rid of the annoyance. You want to allow it only via compacting, rather than completely hiding, but that's just details. Someone else even suggested the same thing. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:08, 14 Feb 2009 (UTC)

The proposal did not give such an impression, and it was a last-minute realization of a possibility of common ground. —kur ykh 08:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That seems to have been the impression you had when you made your comment there. You opposed on the grounds that the notices are meant to be annoying, which would imply that you saw the proposal as a means of getting rid of the annoyance. Now you're okay with letting people get rid of the annoyance aspect. See, this long argument was worth it because we got to how you really feel, which seems pretty darn contrary to your comment at VPR. I think you should amend it accordingly, but I know you probably won't. Hey at least we know ;) Equazcion •✗/C • 08:25, 14 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I take it back, you did :) Thanks. Good argument, let's do it again real soon :) Equazcion •✗/C • 08:28, 14 Feb 2009 (UTC)

break 2

I followed this thread from the source. I agree that if an article has, for example, content problems, then they should be pointed out to the reader. But that is no justification to also introduce readability problems. —Michael Z. 2009-02-14 06:54 z

The correct use of tags should not be lead to readability problems, with the probable exception of {{fact}} tags. —kur ykh 07:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Art

On Facebook there is a fan page for this article "Wikipedia Art" and the founder himself Jimmy Wales just joined this Facebook page. When the founder of Wikipedia joins a fan page in support of this page does this lead credence to keeping the page? http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=75066111912 Will this added bit of information help keep this article? Artintegrated (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I answered you at the deletion discussion. Short answer, no, that doesn't help. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:51, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales didn't have his profile hidden when I put this on the Wikipedia Art AfD page. I assure you. You must be mistaken. There is only one Jimmy Wales on Facebook and he is it. Artintegrated (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, consider me mistaken if you like. I'm not going to continue arguing about this since it has no bearing on whether or not the article stays. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:24, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)

But you saying Jimmy Wales has a hidden profile on that Facebook Wikipedia Art fan page undermines your neutrality and this in fact could sway someone from voting to keep it rather than delete. Its the swaying but not just stating facts that bothers me. Artintegrated (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. The real Jimmy Wales doesn't have a hidden profile. The Jimmy Wales that joined your group does. See Jimmy Wales on Facebook. Hidden profile means that when you click on it you don't get to see the full details page. When you click on your guy, you just get that little mini box and all you can do is add him as a friend. That means his profile is hidden. The real Jimmy Wales profile is not hidden like that. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:25, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)

- All this means is you dont know Facebook but are willing to state things as that you dont know about. Case closed. Artintegrated (talk) 05:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  - Case closed? That's a good argument. I can do it too. You don't understand what I'm saying. Case closed. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:25, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
    - WOW! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artintegrated (talk • contribs) 07:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
      - Yeah, them's the breaks. If it makes you feel any better, you're not the first to try using Wikipedia as a playground. That stuff never lives long. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:05, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Art

Now I understand that what you did Equazcion was highly improper and is being investigated. Interestingly enough. Artintegrated (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Then you misunderstand. I didn't delete the article. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:13, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)

New Idea for edit summaries

Hi I had an idea for automatic edit summaries. I didn't know if it was persistent proposal so I thought I'd run it by you first. Essentially, when I go through a page's history it's difficult to assertain who has added what for the obvious reason that some editors don't add edit summaries. So I was thinking if someone removes text, like in recent changes, could it say "removed 500 bytes" in the history? I am aware the number of bytes is given however not the differences in the history.
Potentially when someone adds content and doesn't provide a summary could it say "added <ref>..." for example, like when you create a new page. --DFS454 (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree tacking on the # of bytes added or removed would be very helpful, and probably easily implemented. I'm not sure how feasible the other part is, automatically showing the added or removed text; or for that matter if they're (the powers that be) gonna want it to work like that. It might make people start judging edits without checking their context within the page. I seem to remember that or something like it being proposed a while ago, though I don't remember the outcome. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:16, 18 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess your right about the second part. --DFS454 (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is an existing preference to show the # of bytes removed added: my preferences->Recent changes->"Enhanced recent changes".--Father Goose (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that DFS454 is suggesting adding that number to each edit summary permanently, rather than merely seeing it in your watchlist or recent changes. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:03, 18 Feb 2009 (UTC)

King Kong "defense"

In hindsight I think you are probably correct about the POV part stirring TPB's supporters up. But at this point the AFD has a ton of comments and I am hesitant to modify my reasoning. In looking at the current votes I think this will probably close as a merge/redirect or keep. Once the trial is over and a bit of time has gone by we may have to reexamine the article. KnightLago (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

SPS redirect/revamp

I'm concerned that the redirect seems to have been done without discussion -- at least any that I've seen, and I've had the article on my watchlist for some time. In addition, the major changes / deletions made at the same time seem to me to have removed useful material.

As a result, I've left a note at the newly named talk page suggesting a reversion of the redirect / revamp, pending some discussion amongst active editors on the talk page. Your comments? ww (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll post my response to the article talk page shortly to avoid having to repeat it all. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:03, 20 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Moved from MOS talk page

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Feel free to respond further here.

Compacted discussion

Why? Equazcion •✗/C • 06:00, 23 Feb 2009 (UTC)

The policy about national varieties of English has one main purpose: To keep the peace between American (or sometimes North American) English speakers, and Commonwealth English speakers (sometimes, Commonwealth minus Canada).

Continental Europeans have no dog in that hunt, and there is no good justification for ceding them to the British side. This proposal threatens the fragile balance that has been achieved. --Trovatore (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

But you just said that if a country has a distinct variety then it should be honored. If that variety happens to be the same as the British, as seems to be the case in many European countries that don't use English primarily, then why not honor that as well? Equazcion •✗/C • 06:10, 23 Feb 2009 (UTC)

If they have a truly distinct variety, like India, then yes. But in the case of, say, France or Germany, they do not. All they are doing is copying British usage, on those occasions in which they wish to publish in English — this does not constitute an indigenous variety. No, that absolutely does not count. --Trovatore (talk) 06:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're arguing — if there were a "French English" that just happened to be the same as British English, then I suppose that would count. But that just isn't the case. There is no French English, whether the same as British or otherwise — there are only French people who learned English as a foreign language, likely from British sources, and use that variety when publishing in what to them is a foreign tongue. --Trovatore (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not really arguing that at all. I'm arguing that it shouldn't matter if the variety is truly distinct or not. You're implying that this is a matter of national pride, and I really don't see where you're getting that from. In my eyes this part of the guideline is an attempt to aid in the tough decision of which English variety to use, and using the practice of the country that the topic is tied to seems the best way to make that decision. Basically agree with Shreevatsa's comment below. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:30, 23 Feb 2009 (UTC)

No, I disagree, it is not the best way. When there are not strong national (or at least cultural) ties to a variety that genuinely exists in that language or culture, then the best way is to go with the variety originally used. "Don't change the variety" is a rule that works surprisingly well. --Trovatore (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The strong national ties the guideline refers to are a topic to a country, not a country to a language variety. Plus I'm not sure how you're judging a country's potential care for a particular variety. Just because it doesn't use English primarily, how do you know they don't still feel a tie to a particular variety of English when they do use it? If their English-language media outlets use UK English, maybe they feel strongly about that particular variety. On what grounds do we assume otherwise? Equazcion •✗/C • 06:40, 23 Feb 2009 (UTC)

The burden is on anyone who wants to change the language variety from the established one. Changing language varieties is a potentially inflammatory act and needs justification. --Trovatore (talk) 06:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

We're not talking about going around changing established articles. We're talking about what the general practice on Wikipedia should be. I'll admit that telling people to go around changing articles is a bad idea, but we can stipulate a preference in disputes and relatively new articles, as in the case that sparked this discussion (The Pirate Bay trial). Equazcion •✗/C • 06:54, 23 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I feel it is inappropriate to use phrases like "keep the peace", "dog in that hunt" and "ceding them to the British side", as if there is a war. The policy is for using whatever is most appropriate for the article in question; it is not a military treaty. Shreevatsa (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that you do not understand the history of the situation. I stand by my remarks — "keeping the peace" is exactly the reason for the guideline. If it would work, we could flip a coin and choose American or British, and everyone would work with it. But it wouldn't work; editors from the losing side wouldn't accept it, and perhaps would make a fork of the project, to no one's gain (there are two Norwegian wikipedias, for God's sake, and Norwegian is mutually comprehensible with Swedish). --Trovatore (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So just because Sweden wouldn't make a big stink about "losing", we can ignore their general practice? We only respect the language practices of countries who would fight us on it? The squeaky wheel gets the grease? I don't think that's fair or rational, and regardless of the history of the situation I think the guideline now serves a legitimate purpose beyond that potential quarrel. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:35, 23 Feb 2009 (UTC)

It is not really their general practice. It is the practice only of those there who publish in English; that isn't "general". Don't change the established variety in the article; that's the workable old workhorse. --Trovatore (talk) 06:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it matter if it's "general" or "not general". If the publishers of English-language media within a country use a consistent variety, I see no grounds for not using that variety in their topics. I haven't yet heard any good reason for ignoring that when English isn't the primary language. It seems neither here-nor-there to me. Old methods are similarly no argument in my mind, as I'm all for making changes if they make sense, no matter how long we've been doing things the other way. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:50, 23 Feb 2009 (UTC)

So first, clearly the burden of proof is on you to show that it does matter. Second, you need to recognize that this is an inflammatory proposal. It has echoes of the offensive fantasy of some Commonwealth speakers that they speak so-called "International English". --Trovatore (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but you'll have to explain to me again why this is an "inflammatory proposal", because I didn't quite get that. As for burden of proof, there is no burden of proof. We're discussing what the better way would be for Wikipedia, which we both have an opinion about. You don't have to prove your stance any less than I do mine. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:02, 23 Feb 2009 (UTC)

To back up a few posts, I agree with Trovatore that there is a "fragile balance" in the usage guidelines. Looking back in the MOS history, that balance has been essentially unchanged in at least five years. The 7 January 2004 version included the statement "Articles which focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally aim to conform to the spelling of that country." I believe the "English-speaking country" part was intentional and was meant not to include other countries where English is not the/a primary language. I suspect that all countries likely have some English-speaking segments, so I don't think the existence of English-language media qualifies a country as English-speaking. You could propose a change to the current wording, but I suspect it would be met with significant resistance. -- Tcncv (talk) 07:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Equazcion

Just wanted to say your efforts round the (per WP:DAW) wiki are appreciated. Especially your good handling of the King Kong defense merge/delete saga and persistent support in WP:VPR! --DFS454 (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hehe... No problem, and thanks to you for having a social conscience, adhering to DAW and all. :) Equazcion •✗/C • 14:07, 2 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Notability (Fiction)

There seems to be some progress being made towards redrafting the guideline. Most of the arguments for a permissive guideline seem to have been countered in the sense that they have been found not to be viable. My attempts to obtain a compromise earlier this year seem to be leading towards a slightly stricter applciation of WP:V for fiction that should discourage topics which are only the subject of in universe plot summary, trivia and cruft. A recent post at WT:FICT#The rules seems to make this clear. Can you provide some cool and clear support towards drafting a compromise that is compliant with existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines? --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Archiving Talk:George Frideric Handel

I think you've deleted a whole lot of the archive. No? I've been trying to put all the posts in order. I think it might have been better to let me do it? Too many cooks and all that? --Klein zach 05:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, no, not really. You may want to think more collaboratively than that on Wikipedia, get used to multiple people doing stuff along with you and all. The order of discussions doesn't matter much, but you're welcome to re-order them if you like. And no, I don't believe I deleted anything from the archives. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:51, 5 Mar 2009 (UTC)

You archived one section a second time. Hopefully nothing has also gone missing. Collaborative means working together, not doing the same thing at the same time. Please don't do this again, OK. --Klein zach 05:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Have a nice day. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:58, 5 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Same to you. Hope the sun shines. --Klein zach 06:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Liberty ships: G-Je

Unless I'm wrong, I think you copied the Je-L list over twice. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#List_of_Liberty_ships:_G-Je. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened there. Gonna comment at ANI. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:57, 5 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Mjroots (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for sorting this out. I tried to do it myself but was unable and wasn't sure of the best way to get some attention, hence report at AN/I. Mjroots (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:56, 5 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Gail Trimble

Hello, what do you think of the above article? There's a lot of discussion going on about a merge/delete/redirect but there is not any concencus. It is similar to the "King Kong defense" business.

--DFS454 (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I just posted a related proposal at VPP that you might be interested in. It seems that if it had been implemented a long time ago this issue might have been averted. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:36, 6 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Notice

A discussion about Wikipedia:Vandalism-only account has been started at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Vandalism-only_account. -- IRP ☎ 22:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Template placement

Well I have no strong feelings on this one, it's part of AWB general fixes. I am reluctant to turn them off to suppress that, but I will raise the matter with the devs. Rich Farmbrough, 04:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC).

Mythology of The X-Files

First off, you should join The X-Files project here on wikipedia. Second, as you said on the mythology talk page, if we are going to create a detailed analysis for the show, shouldn't we just create a plot summary for all The X-Files mytharc episodes?

This is just an idea. --TIAYN (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking more that it would be a general explanation of the the story elements, with explanations of how they all tie together, rather than a detailed analysis or a chronological telling. Because we already have a lot of X-Files articles floating around I thought it would be good to use this article to simply tie them all together. I have a feeling a chronological plot summary would quickly turn into a very long and detailed article that no one will read and that every fan will add extraneous detail to, like what happened to the main X-Files article before. We could hold a discussion to determine the best way to go about it though. Hopefully there are other people who could weigh in and help decide the best option. Equazcion (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm letting you decide here. --TIAYN (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure myself what would be best :) It's possible that it'll get too complicated this way, and it might be easier to switch to a chronological plot summary. But for now I'll move ahead as I was and see how it goes. Equazcion (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Replied to your comment(s). Quiddity99, the other user you mentioned is busy in real-life so he won't be able to join the discussion thread. --TIAYN (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied... Again. --TIAYN (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Again. --TIAYN (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Again. --TIAYN (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: your minor fixes

Ok, thanks for letting me know. Hardtofindaname 20:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Help

Article depreciation notice is distracting to readers and ugly. If you want to remove the templates and add the categories yourself that is fine. I don't want to have a depreciated template on the article space. So by commenting it out the template can still be replaced by a bot for the category without having the eyesore. Check stats if you are wondering how big the eyesore is. Brian Everlasting (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Intro-synonyms

HAHA. That's great. I just happened to be racking my brain over how to shorten the wording, right when you changed it. It may need a little tweaking but definitely much better. Introman (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Future stuff

Thanks for the info. I just encountered the template with a speedy notice and got rid of it. If necessary I can restore it although I really hope these templates won't be needed anymore. Garion96 (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the appropriate next step is for the various {{future}} templates to be put up in groups of five to ten, in related groups, before WP:TfD, for the next to last discussion, (the last discussion being a review of a TfD), ((and subsequent discussions being the TfD for the re-creation of the templates in question.)) -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You should probably post this at the discussion, rather than just telling individual people. Equazcion (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

SBSP article changes

Hi, what is the corrosion that you reinserted into SBSP article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space-based_solar_power&diff=311582142&oldid=311542254

silcon wafer bonded to glass cover, little room for corrosion. What does this refer to?

also "meteorological and weather conditions " isn't this self repetition?

Maybe there's a nuance I'm missing.

regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.0.62.164 (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not corrosion, but I'm assuming the cells get damaged in some way from weather etc. Feel free to correct it. Equazcion (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Wp first edition.jpg

Hi,

I've accidentally uploaded an image to to "File:Wp first edition.jpg", which was intended to go elsewhere. Could you kindly assist me in removing it. Sorry about this. Many thanks. Mootros (talk)

What's up?

Hi! problems? :D
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 19:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I recently succumbed to the netbook craze, and am still getting used to it. It's too small for my hands. I must've accidentally hit your rollback link in my watchlist. I undid it. My bad :) Equazcion (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

lol No problem, I was just curious is all.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I meant marking the talk page conversation resolved but hey marking the project main page section resolved probably wasn't a bad idea so thanks. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood you. But yeah, in the interest of moving it's probably best. ANI has more eyes on it and would probably get more useless responses if not marked resolved. Best to let it die. :) Equazcion (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Future templates

I deleted a batch of them, but it was getting late (Eastern Canada), so I went to sleep. I see that the rest have been deleted. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Admins sleep? :) I was just pointing out one I thought was missed. It's all good, thanks. Equazcion (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha. We're human too. Or human enough to pass a Turing test. :p --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Intro-synonyms - cont.

The template Intro-synonyms was created for use in a pattern of disruptive editing by Introman and would not normally be used by anyone else. RJII was a disruptive editor (long before I was here) who was subject of an RfA[4] and was blocked as a shared account. Subsequently he established numerous accounts for disruptive editing.[5][6] Introman is blocked as a suspected reincarnation of RJII.[7]

RJII explained his motivations:

What we did has nothing to do with being Jewish. We just happen to be Jews, so it was a convenient username for our effort. We're Jews (our benefactors, and editors (with the exception of one assistant editor)) who injected our intelligence into the Wikipedia system into the specific areas we were concerned with, building a latticework that will further our own interests in the real world. What those interests are has nothing to do with being Jewish (apart from our inherited intelligence and cultural values, perhaps). We just happen to be Jews. That's all. RJII is not the name of the underlying organization. (I don't think we were planning on revealing what RJII stood for, in order to prevent any confusion, but one of the editors promised otherwise several months ago, so we had to make good on that). RJII 07:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[8]

The template should have been deleted because it was created by banned user RJII and probably would have been deleted without Introman's defence. It was specifically tailored for a dispute Introman had with me over the prominence of synonyms in the lead of Social liberalism. I suppose I may dislike a template specifically created to irritate me, but really see no reason why it should be retained.

May I suggest that you nominate the template for deletion and I will stay out of the discussion. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've made the nomination: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 October 4. Equazcion (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Also, I think that your description of the issues on the TfD present fairly the issues that I had. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia for? Our discussion

I was thinking we might be going off topic on the discussion of Noleander, so I decided to write to you on your Talk page.

>It's not our job to run the encyclopedia in such a way as to prevent violence.

I'm not saying that it is. For example, we're certainly allowed to let information suppressed by unjust regimes be brought to light on WP, even if it leads to violent revolt. However, we ought to avoid misleading people on WP. Presenting false or biased information hurts people, namely readers (because they have distorted facts in their brain) and possibly subjects (because they are sometimes affected by what readers of the article think about them). If an article unjustly harms subjects, I think it is worse because it is more damaging--and articles that cause a greater amount of unfair damage are of course more problematic.

>The antisemitism issue we're dealing with in this incident is an emotional one. Let's not kid ourselves with righteousness.

Here, I disagree. Why else is slander of living people in a special category, separate from other types of bias? Because the effects of slander are particularly damaging, especially slander that some people will believe. Slander of living people applies to groups, not just individuals. --AFriedman (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the particularly harsh response this incident received. You can point to concern for the possible effect on living people as the cause, but again I think you're kidding yourself. This is an emotionally charged issue for many, and it shows.

Of course we should not mislead anyone, but that concern is observed equally for any topic -- except BLP. There's no "groups of persons" policy. Groups, movements, peoples, nations, are all reported on openly and with completeness, despite the possible repercussions. Equazcion (talk) 08:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I appreciate you bringing this to my talk page. I should probably be doing something similar for many of the tangential debates I get into with people. Equazcion (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering: Why shouldn't there be a policy about slander against groups, to some extent analogous to the policy about slander in BLP? The effects are potentially similar and it may be a hole in WP policy. I was thinking that, like slander in BLP, slander against groups targets undeserving individuals and I don't fully understand why WP should treat it differently.

Also, there is a reason why antisemitism is so emotionally charged. How would you feel if you lost a parent in the Holocaust? The Holocaust was caused by false accusations about Jews made by the Nazi regime, which many people believed. Because the Holocaust still affects families and communities, some people have a certain natural reaction toward anything that smacks of antisemitic propaganda. Even after the Holocaust, blatant anti-Semitism has caused damage to Jews, e.g. when many Middle Eastern countries expelled their Jews and seized their property in the later part of the 20th century. More subtle anti-semitism is prevalent in many places. Of course, mainstream and factually supported criticism of the State of Israel, Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League and individual Jews belong on Wikipedia, and I am even on the side of a well-referenced historical article such as Criticism of Judaism (I just promoted it or increased its importance level on several WikiProjects).

Furthermore, Jewish cultural values may influence the way some people behave on Wikipedia. Specifically, Jewish ethics stress the importance of preserving human life. For example, in Judaism there are many rules about how to live, derived from the Torah, the Oral Torah and Rabbinic law--nearly all of which are rendered null and void when lives are threatened. For example, one of the Ten Commandments is "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy" but all types of work are allowed on Sabbath if they preserve human life. Traditional Jewish culture is less concerned with placing restrictions on behavior--for example, one of the fundamental premises of Rabbinic law is that actions that are a step toward transgressions and actions that resemble transgressions are also problematic (these concepts are, respectively, "gezerot" and "marat ayin"). You and Noleander may have encountered editors of this mindset when it came to blowing the whistle loudly about antisemitism, which has taken much human life in recent history. On that note, why do you seem to be so disturbed about how loudly the whistle was blown for Noleander? --AFriedman (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Frankly even BLP is a questionable practice for me, but I respect it. The problem with creating a group policy is, where does it stop? Once there's a policy regarding groups, people could say "Well, a nation is a kind of group, and there's a similar concern there." There might then come a time when we couldn't report honestly on a company, a country, cruise line, because of concerns of slander. Any time you say "there's a reason we shouldn't say this despite it being true", you're removing part of our ability to remain uncensored. A group policy is the first step towards censorship, if BLP wasn't already.

I'm aware of why antisemitism is emotionally charged, and I understand it fully. I never said it shouldn't be, and I never asked "why".

Nevertheless, you as the encyclopedia editor have a duty first to objectively ensure the completeness of information in this encyclopedia. Your personal feelings must be set aside. If you want to argue that Wikipedia is an online community, and the norms of the usual online community should be tolerated here, including activism, then you're not here for the right reasons. If you were working at any other encyclopedia, your personal feelings would have nothing to do with the work you did, and if anyone found out that it did, you'd get fired. For better or worse, this is what makes an encyclopedia.

I'm disturbed about the harsh response to Noleander because the situation has shown that there's a large volume of editors who don't understand the above, and I'm concerned for the encyclopedia. Wikipedia represents an ideal of enlightenment for me, a new Illuminati, a place where religious politics have no place in governing content. That ideal is threatened when things like this happen. Equazcion (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Here, we disagree--I'm a strong supporter of the BLP policy because I think it is very important to protect the people in question. There is essentially no difference between what can be used for BLPs and what can be used for articles about other subjects--just how serious an offense introducing inappropriately referenced or unreferenced material is. The line in the sand about BLPs is clear to me, and BLPs that do not always present living people in a flattering light are some of Wikipedia's better articles--see, for example, the article about George W. Bush. However, improperly sourced facts about living people may find their way into articles that are not BLPs, and not all slander is directed toward individuals. For this and other reasons, I agree that a major guideline for editors is, to quote from the BLP policy page, "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment" and not only in BLP articles. To use an analogy that I think applies to Noleander, Al-Qaeda's propaganda about the U.S.A. does not belong in an article about the U.S.A. even if legitimate and well-supported criticisms (such as what we did to the Native Americans, our history of slavery and ongoing history of racism, and the arguments that we violated human rights in Guantanamo Bay) do. What would you think if someone introduced "factual" material from an Al-Qaeda source into an article about the U.S.A.? Noleander has apologized and I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on whether he knew incorporating materials from RadioIslam was roughly equivalent for an article about Jews. --AFriedman (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but the article wasn't about Jews when that material was included. Would I have a problem with Al Qaeda beliefs in the USA article? Perhaps. Would I have a problem with Al Qaeda beliefs in an article about common criticisms of the USA? This would be the relevant question; and no, I wouldn't. Would you? Equazcion (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I seem to differ with other editors regarding what the article should have been about, which is different from its actual content. I have tried to present my opinion that the main information on the topic (mostly missing from the article) is the specific contributions of individual people. Hence, I have supported merging the antisemitic accusations with articles such as Antisemitic canards and redirecting the page about Jews and Hollywood to American Jews. Thus, I think the article in its current form is, in theory if not in reality, about Jews. ("Jews control Hollywood," the original page title, could be redirected to "Antisemitic canards.") In the article, there is little about what specific Jewish people had done and information about statements by notable people such as Marlon Brando and even Medved had apparently been traced to RadioIslam sources. (See http://radioislam.org/islam/english/toread/hollyjew.htm the specific RadioIslam article, which is remarkably similar to the text Noleander wrote.) The presentation of RadioIslam sources in "Jews and Hollywood," I think, is analogous to presenting Al-Qaeda statements about Marlon Brando as the main facts in an article about American influence in a particular area. Also, do you agree with my arguments about BLPs? --AFriedman (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a merge. That is to say, I don't presently perceive a need based on the arguments that have been given so far, though there may very well be; I suspect there is some practice or unwritten policy at work here that I've thus far not been privy to. See User:Equazcion/Noleander thoughts for my theory(? more like my question) on this. Equazcion (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As for BLP: Whether the policy directly limits content or instructs us to "be extra sensitive", I believe the harm is still done. Again I'm not necessarily against BLP itself, but I do think that's where the eggshell-stepping should likely end. Equazcion (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

My argument for a merge is not based on antisemitism--it is based on my classification of the current article's subject and the fact that analogous material was not given its own article in other instances. For example, I could not find any articles about "Jews and science" or "Jews and Washington D.C." I believe the placement of such information in other articles is an unwritten, unspoken policy based on precedent. We also seem to disagree on whether to take a restricted or expanded view of the BLP policies, and I'm willing to leave it at that. --AFriedman (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why it should depend on there being counter-balancing articles, though I'm not against creating those, too, if there's a reason to, ie. if there were some prominent conception about Jews' roles in science. If this indeed is an unwritten policy based on precedent, then I think it should probably become a written policy, if it's so binding as to warrant the deletion of an article. Equazcion (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There are similar ideas about Jews in science--that Jews dominate it--and Jews in Washington D.C.--that Jews control the U.S. government. The Hollywood canard is only one subcategory of the accusation that a Jewish cabal runs the world. I think the relevant materials are best covered by other articles, to direct Wikipedia's readership to the topic in its broader context. Let's keep article scope as consistent as possible so readers and editors will have an easier time navigating. Noleander has even agreed to merge the article with others. --AFriedman (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD

The beginning of this discussion was moved here from User talk:Slrubenstein. Equazcion (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Your first two questions are frankly insulting, and seem to ignore Noleander's previous statements. That's why you haven't gotten answers.

"Do you think that every AfD is an attempt to censor"

No, he doesn't. You haven't gotten an answer to this because it's an oversimplification of everything that's been said up until now. Noleander said he felt there was a suppression of certain content. There's no reason to assume he therefore thinks all AfDs are censorship attempts. If you told me to stop parking my car in front of your driveway, and I countered that by asking you "So you think all parking should be banned?", that's not constructive. It either means you haven't been listening, or you're playing a rhetorical game.

"Do you think Wikipedia should allow anti-Semitic articles?"

As should be obvious from Noleander's comments up until now, he doesn't believe his articles were anti-semitic. So, what's the point of asking this? Answering the question, especially saying "no" to it, could carry the implication that he agrees on its relevance. Your asking of this question to begin with already makes an insulting assumption of relevance to the situation. Equazcion (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuses, excuses - response on your page. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If your friend really thinks that wishing to delete an article need not be censorship, and that we should be careful about anti-Semitism at Wikipedia, then he should understand why people were concerned. Repeating that accusations of anti-Semitism are attempts to censor him, rather than cries of pain for having been attacked, is not a constructive way forward. I know he has made gestures in other directions to which I and others have responded positively, yet when people continue to register concern he often returns to this position. That's a shame. In the meantime I hope he is answering my other questions. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

People aren't merely registering concern. They're hammering him from all sides with statements of varying accusatory tone. You might fold in that situation too. I don't defend some of Noleander's claims, especially of deliberate intimidation. I ask nevertheless that you try to understand where they're coming from.

As you can see in the discussion above with AFreidman, I believe there's a difference between "allowing anti-semitic articles" and "being careful about anti-semitism", the implication of the latter being troubling to me. All biases should be of equal concern. The "special" response this particular issue has gotten is evidence of something else, which I've again described above. Equazcion (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with you that all biases are of equal concern. I'd be glad if this agreement provided a way forward, but I guess you'd have to provide some specific examples. In the meaqntime, above, you write, "I'm disturbed about the harsh response to Noleander because the situation has shown that there's a large volume of editors who don't understand the above," which seems to wave the same red flag of censorship. I genuinely believe your saying this misses the point and makes things worse. I hate censorship, I am opposed to it. I also think that Wikipedia can and should have articles on complex and troubling issues. I think the whole "censorship" thing is your own red-herring, because I know that there are articles that report on conflicts involving Jews, matters that cast Israel in a bad light, etc, and I have never asked for any one of them to be deleted and I bet most of the people voting for the articles currently under question to be deleted have never asked that those other articles be deleted. Many people have made constructive suggestions about how the notable issues could be handled more encyclopedically in the context of other articles and with real research. It is in my view very bad faith to suggest that to avoid anti-Semitism requires Wikipedia to avoid including encyclopedic content. That is just not true. Encyclopedic content can be presented in non-anti-Semitic ways. Yet when I and others ask that this be done here, we are accused of censorship. That is at best disingenuous, at worst, offensive. And it doesn't help when I and others have expressed a willingness to discuss how the content could be added in an encyclopedic way. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You're again bringing into this discussion the assertion that the article was antisemitic. I'd again need to see some sort of proof of that. NPOV allows stating facts of opinions, just not asserting those opinions; This is the heart of the "antisemitic article" issue, and so far, no one has offered a specific diff or quote that shows it was violated. Equazcion (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Will you please STOP IT. I provided my reasons in the very first AN/I. And I summarized them again when I cast my first "delete" vote. Do you think I need to convince you? Am I supposed to decide what is or is not anti-Semitic according to your beliefs? Why? Do you think that I insist that you decide what is or is not anti-Semitic must be determined by me? I have never suggested that and if you think I have then you do not understand how to participate in reasoned discourse. All I expect is that the reasons I provided be taken at good faith (WP:AGF). You do not have to agree with me, just accept my views as legitimate - at that point, you know what we do? We have a vote! And we will see what the outcome of the vote is. That you keep demanding proof for my view is a blatant sign of bad faith on your part. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok.

I've written a little theory I had yesterday, if you'd care to take a look. It's at User:Equazcion/Noleander thoughts. Pardon the third-person referral to you, as this was meant to be posted an ANI, and still might be. You don't have to respond if you don't want to. Equazcion (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if someone called your article antisemitic, I think you'd ask them, rather emphatically, for proof of that, too, and use policy to defend your article. Equazcion (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I would never ask someone to "prove" that an article is anti-Semitic. What a strange way to use language! I reserve "proof" for mathematical and logical matters (like, prove the pythagorean theorum). Identifying something as anti-semitic is a value-judgement and is impossible to prove. I would ask someone for their reasons, just as I provided my reasons, several times. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think vague feelings belong at AfD. The statement at NPOV is meant to handle biased content, including antisemitic ones, in the interest of making proof of such assertions possible. If all you have is a vague feeling about an article, that's very weak rationale. You're not using the tools that have been provided specifically for the purpose of objectively determining the possible existence of bias. Equazcion (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You obviously do not know what you are talking about. You do not know what a value judgment is or what a proof is. Nor do you understand the difference between the criteria for deletion and NPOV which is a policy governing the editing of articles. I agree that there is no place for vague assertions, which is why I have never made any. If all you can do is spew more bad faith, as you seem so comfortable doing, no wonder you haven't made any progress trying to defend the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's say someone nominated Anti-semitisim for deletion, with the rationale that it's anti-semitic. What would you say? Or let's just say someone removed all the content describing instances of anti-semitism from that article, saying that it's anti-semitic. How would you respond to them? You could say "Well this is obviously ridiculous, any moron can see this information belongs in article, you are clearly an idiot and that's all that needs to be said." Or would you find a policy instead that supports that material's inclusion? NPOV clearly tells editors how to recognize bias. Why not use it? Wouldn't you? Equazcion (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that there are 2 separate issues here--what to do about the Jews and Hollywood page and what to do about Noleander. Perhaps the 2 issues should remain separate. --AFriedman (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The two seem intertwined. If the article is indeed anti-semitic, as Slrubenstein claims, not only should the article be deleted but it may show that further steps should be taken regarding Noleander. If it's not, then the article could conceivably be kept (barring other problems remaining by the close of AfD) and no further action against Noleander need be taken. Equazcion (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The previous thread now discusses an argument for deletion/merge that is based on precedent and Wikipedia consistency, issues that are separate from antisemitism. --AFriedman (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Breaking in for a moment, as a better place to say something a little personal than the AfD itself: There were areas of American life were Jews occupied leadership positions: some were good ones, such as Hollywood. Some were evil ones, such as the prohibition-era gangs in NYC. In either case a person who wants to deny their influence is acting in the interest of anti-Semitism -- supporting the view that Jews are in so great a conspiracy overall that they will try to hide their influence, and to suppress all potentially negative information about any of them. I accuse those who want to remove the article of following group-think into a strategy of telling obvious lies. I picked the first two words of that last sentence deliberately. (I've said this previously here, and accused of being a self-hating Jew. I am rather a Jew who wishes to present his part of the world as it really is, to show, basically, that we are people like other people, and proud of it. We are as a group not predominantly more evil than other people--saying so is rightly considered despicable prejudice; but neither are we substantially better, and it is blind arrogance and prejudice to pretend we are . If I were a religious person, and though we were in the traditional sense the Chosen People, I would still say this, because we would have been chosen not because we were perfect, but because we were perfectible.) DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

I just wanted to let you know that even though we are on opposing sides this time on the matter of Noleander's edits and contributions; I consider you an honorable Wikipedian and consider you a "wiki-friend". I have commented on Slrubenstein's talk page letting him know that and that you are editing in good faith, not as part of some anti-semitic conspiracy. I compared you to the ACLU, who while defending the rights of all of us must also defend the right to speak of people we find despicable; the work must be done by someone and I applaud you and respect you greatly for what you have done while still disagreeing with you. I do think if you look at it from a POV fork and technical manner that you can come to a conclusion that the two articles are not acceptable from the point of Wikipedia policy without having to claim Noleander is anti-semitic. If we get delete the two articles, and someone keeps an eye on Noleander's continued contributions if he decides to go to Jewish articles we will see over time if he is acting in good faith, or as some believe we may find out that he is indeed working on an anti-semitic agenda. Yes it may be that some Jewish related articles are POV in favor of Jews, I dont know I dont actually edit or look at those articles; but the way to make them POV is not to put in slurs and anti-semitic ideas, its simply to rewrite the POV parts to make them neutral language. As with any article there will be good and extraordinary things that should in fact be put in to put the topic in positive view and show what is extraordinary about the topic. Example- if a city is important historically and has had a great contribution to history then it should be shown how the city has been so. Jews have an average IQ 10 points (1 standard deviation) above that of the average IQ of 100, they are the only group that is statistically above average. Do we call that POV or do we call that the truth? Do we then have to temper that good positive stuff with POV bad stuff to make it "balance out". My belief is no. Good does not mean POV if it is a fact. Bad stuff tend to not be scientific or fact, only opinion and "urban legend" (Jews control Hollywood for instance, Jews drink babies blood at Passover can not be backed on a scientific basis). Bad stuff is perfectly fine and not POV if presented in the right manner and backed by truth, not just what antisemites happen to believe. The article on anti-semitism is the place for anti-semitic beliefs.Camelbinky (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on where to go from here. The issue of the articles can be ascertained, probably, from the POV-fork claim, which I don't have a defense for and so far no one else does either.

Comparing me to the ACLU in this situation, while I appreciate the intention of this as a compliment, is inaccurate. If I believed the article was antisemitic, or that Noleander was antisemitic (either one independently), and was defending either of them as having just as much right to be here as any other type of speech, then the analogy would be more apt. However I do not believe the article to be antisemitic, nor do I think that of Noleander, at the present time.

My main issue is this very claim of antisemitism in the articles and in Noleander's comments. We have the NPOV policy which tells us how to recognize any bias. No one has been able to provide diffs or quotes that prove bias from a policy standpoint.

If we can just say "this is biased, i really feel it, it's just that obvious", then we run an incredible risk that extends much further than antisemitism.

If someone can provide proof of bias, I will examine it and be prepared to change my tune. This means diffs or quotes that show the assertion, rather than merely the reporting, of the opinions presented. It is so very important that we demand these things in such debates.

I don't know either about this void in content Noleander perceives, but that shouldn't matter. He perceives it, and there's nothing wrong with that, as long as he edits within policy from now on. Equazcion (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, can you, if you get time, provide me with the diff where Noleander mentions he believes there is a "void in content"? I'm curious as to what he means by that, does he think there is a lack of anti-semitic, stereotyping, or just "bad" Jewish information in Wikipedia; is that the void he means? IF that's what he means...wow, that's a little uncomfortable that someone wants to fill that void. I'm not saying he should be blocked from doing so, but that he definitely should be watched carefully if he does think that, because in wanting to fill that "void" he can easily slip down the slippery slope quite easily into unacceptable editing as he did with the two POV fork articles. I would also like to point out that the POV fork argument is one that was put out pretty early (by me and others) but did get swamped by accusations of anti-semitism, which I agree with you probably shouldnt have been made since the POV fork was a policy argument that would have won the day alot easier and quicker had it been the focus. Perhaps if the fork argument had been the only one this would have been over sooner? Would you agree to close out the two articles on a delete basis and a mildly worded pre-agreed "warning" issued to Noleander regarding POV forks? I believe it was mentioned that Noleander has already agreed only to work on existing Jewish-related articles from now on (though I never read him actually say that). I have no opinion as to Noleander's motives, but to be on the safe side it should be presented to Noleander clearly that if there are any bias motives behind his contributions that they will be found if they occur. I wouldnt want anyone to get the idea that they can get anything by us just because we werent harsh on Noleander, and I believe we shouldnt be harsh on Noleander since no proof has been established that he has ulterior motives.Camelbinky (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The void is of the reporting of the history of antisemitism, and of how much it actually occurs in the world. There may be a diff that says this specifically, but either way, we are to assume the best of intentions, not the worst. If you're uncomfortable with the prospect of someone wanting the history of such a disturbing phenomenon to be more complete, then we indeed have different views on what Wikipedia is about. I'm not sure if that's what you meant or not, but I'm just stating my feeling on the subject.

I don't think there's much chance Noleander will try anything remotely like this any time soon, and he's had more than his share of warnings already (to put it lightly). I don't want to say I'm ready to have the articles deleted yet. As I said I don't have a defense for the POV-fork argument (except perhaps for WP:Content forking...), but I'm not confident yet that no defense exists, and would be interested in seeing the AfD's closing rationale. There are a lot of people on Wikipedia who are a lot smarter than me, and I want to hear what they have to say. It's not my decision anyway, despite how vocal I've been. Equazcion (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI: [9]. Sandstein 20:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I started typing that response before you closed, so I didn't see the closing before I saved. I'm fine with it being removed. Equazcion (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for the notice, I appreciate it. Equazcion (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: MFD

Thats Ok, as Jesus said, "Judge not lest ye be judged". I accept your apology with good grace. The C of E (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

Thanks for closing that before he really embarassed himself. Well done. Keeper | 76 03:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem :) Equazcion (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Haggis

The WikiHaggis

I hereby award you the WikiHaggis! This means you are slightly nutty, sorta spicy, and maybe resemble stuffed pig intestines.

Pass this WikiHaggis on by putting {{subst:WikiHaggis}} on someone's talk page!

Wanted to give you a personal user award to soften any unintentional insult of last night's ANI closure. For some reason this haggis looked good. Best wishes, Durova³²⁵ 15:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I hear that stuff tastes as good as it sounds.

That thread wasn't the biggest deal in the world, but I take major issue when people take it upon themselves to decide when discussions have ended and close threads that are still getting replies. Historically this has been a problem for me on Wikipedia. Reverting discussion closures has gotten me blocked. Luckily I was able to restrain myself this time.

That's not to say discussions should never be forcibly ended, but I saw no reason to do that here, especially in a manner that would hide it. This wasn't even a heated thread. Marking it resolved would've been one thing, but to collapse it? ...a thread with something like 6 short replies? There's no obvious reason to do that, so I think there's something you're not saying out loud, maybe for good reason. I won't push it, but since you brought it here, I vented. Thanks again for the haggis. Equazcion (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Red, blue, etc.

Ah, but once someone clicks on you, you turn purple. Or maybe it's lavender. One of those purplish kinds of things. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.. I'm not aware of the scientific research on the mood created by lavender, but it can't be any worse than red. Perhaps people will think I'm choking, and come to my aid. Equazcion (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Lavender, or maybe it's lilac, should be calming, like a lilac bush. Choking? Maybe you'll get mouth-to-mouth from Angelina Jolie. Or Brad Pitt, if that's your thing. More likely, an IP address, the internet equivalent of a Good Samaritan. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Question about the RFA you closed

Not sure if you are the right person to ask, but as you closed this RFA I thought I'd start here. The RFA is listed in the failed RFAs by alphabetical order, but not in the chronological. I presume it is a manual process, and am guessing that the person who closes the RFA archives it, but I could be way off the mark. Any light on this would be gratefully received. Thanks, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That's my fault. They are added manually, and I neglected the chronological page. I've just corrected that. Thanks for heads-up :) Equazcion (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"To err is human, to forgive is divine". Well I am far from divine, and must be exceptionally human having erred more than I care to comment upon in my past :) I still do on a daily basis if truth be told. Thanks for your help. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Omega735

If I may ask, why did you block Omega735? Audi152 (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't block him. User:Sandstein did. I'm assuming he did it because Omega735 was obviously a sockpuppet, and was disrupting RfA. Equazcion (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry I must have went to the wrong person Audi152 (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem :) Equazcion (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

For you

File:Compass Original Barnstar.png		The Guidance Barnstar
		For converting my abnormally long signature into an identical looking but not abnormally long signature. For being cool about it, working with me, and showing humility after the fact, I force upon you, the deserving, this barnstar. Nezzadar ☎ 18:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Equazcion (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD Compromise

Hey, having looked at the comments on the AfD, I've proposed a compromise...no idea if I can actually do it, but I followed WP:IAR and just went ahead and did it anyways. Would love to hear your feedback. Frmatt (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw that, and I think it's a great idea, a good example of what IAR is meant for. I support it and hope it gets accepted :) Equazcion (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated...and I hope that I can spell your name correctly in the future! Frmatt (talk)

barnstar

To **Equazcion** for common sense in helping to resolve noticeboard incidents. -- Samir 03:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Liked your bold edit to the garish signature amongst many other contributions to ANI -- Samir 03:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated. :) Equazcion (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Templating editors

I advice you to read Template the regulars, which is the one I operate by. However, in this case, I made an error, and have promptly correct it by removing the warning on his talk page. --Law Lord (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo History

will you revert the article to the previous condition until he find sources (he got no sources) cause i have a tons of google books about this kingdom books dardanian kingdom

or will you give me permission to revert thanks-- LONTECH Talk 09:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

he edited the article again will you take actions or not?-- LONTECH Talk 12:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I see someone else already did take action, by restoring the stable introductory section. If you're talking about a block, I can't do that since I'm not an administrator. Equazcion (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

that section was reverted again-- LONTECH Talk 15:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Jews and Hollywood AfD

"I pity the poor admin who has to read all this." I would have as well, but User:Coffee gave no sign of having read it; they failed to give a deletion rationale. Fences&Windows 15:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I've brought the matter to DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_October_26#Controversies_related_to_prevalence_of_Jews_in_leadership_roles_in_Hollywood. Equazcion (talk) 16:07, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)

okay

okay Slrubenstein | Talk 18:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

E-mail

Wondered if there was an e-mail that I may be able to contact you on regarding the AfD and the DRV as I find myself needing to sound some things out without the fear of them appearing to be my official position. The problem is that I'm not sure enough about policy and am looking for someone to just make sure that I'm looking at things in the right manner before I make an "official" statement on the DRV. Alternatively, if you think that it won't be misinterpreted, I'm happy to do it here...I just don't want any comments I make here taken out of context and used against me as I am considering an RFA in a few months. Let me know what your opinion is. Frmatt (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine with email. Wikipedia email is enabled for me, so you can use the link appearing in the toolbox on the right while viewing this page (Email this user). You can also use the little email icon I have at the top-right of this page and my main user page. Equazcion (talk) 19:19, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)

Correction, the toolbox is on the left. Oops. :) Equazcion (talk) 19:22, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long...I've just sent it now. Frmatt (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Just for transparency's sake...I've also sent a copy of this to Juliancolton to get the opinion of someone on the other side of the argument. Frmatt (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Lontech block

FWIW, I checked the history of the page, and made sure that that last unblock request happened after you warned him -- otherwise, I would have given him time to retract it. Since he coupled it with an attack on you, I didn't see much hope for a peaceful resolution at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand. He didn't seem to be getting it anyway. Equazcion (talk) 23:39, 27 Oct 2009 (UTC)

Hollywood

I am confused about the current status of Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood - is it still deleted, but the deletion still under review? Or is it still deleted, and the review is over (as most people endorsed the delteion)? Ot has it been un-deleted, and merged with Anti-semitic canard? I consider the third possiblity plausible, although I personally have several caveats about a merger. More importantly, I did not see a consensus for a merger. Even more importantly I do not see any declaration that the review process is over, but maybe I missed something. Can you bring me up to speed? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The review process isn't over yet, and it's as yet still deleted. DRVs get closed by an uninvolved admin just like other discussions, and this one hasn't been yet. I'm sure merging the previous content with other articles would be fine though as an ad-hoc result for now, since almost everyone at the AfD seemed to support that. Equazcion (talk) 12:59, 28 Oct 2009 (UTC)

Do you have strong thoghts, either way, about the merges I proposed? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember the specific details of the various merges proposed by people, but if the deletion is eventually upheld, I'd obviously be fine with the article's content being present in other articles, as opposed to nowhere at all. You or another admin would have to restore the deleted article to someone's userspace though, so editors could have access to its content. Equazcion (talk) 23:12, 28 Oct 2009 (UTC)

The article is still deleted. I posted on the page about the deletion discussion that I had made the merges. If anyone objects, I would be happy to delete the merges or redirect to other pages. --AFriedman (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Email

Hello, and thank you for the email. I am sorry for replying here, but I do not have a secure means of responding otherwise. I am not a native English speaker and so my expressions are sometimes odd, but I meant what I wrote and understand the impression. I was more interested in staking out a point of principle than scoring a PR victory so am fine if someone chooses to interpret it negatively. Regards, Skomorokh, barbarian 20:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Help needed

Anything you can do to help me at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts where Dmcq has brought me to would be beneficial. I know you have to be fair, dont worry if my feelings are hurt as long you are being honest I cant hold anything against you.Camelbinky (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I commented there, though it might not have been what you wanted to hear. The risk you run in being a man on a mission to stop another man on a mission is that you basically become the same as him, at least in the eyes of the third party. It's better, I've found, to not take up causes too personally on Wikipedia. Especially when dealing with a difficult editor, it's better to pop your head in and make occasional comments, rather than racing to respond to everything he says. Regarding your long posts, this is a complaint you're probably not hearing the last of. Although they're often insightful, still, they can usually be boiled down to more concise terms. It may take a conscious effort at first, but brevity is a virtue on talk pages. I'll be watching the Wikiquette alert and will participate more if need be. Good luck! -- Equazcion (talk) 23:41, 1 Nov 2009 (UTC)

PS, is there an email address where I could contact you? If you don't want to disclose one on-wiki, you could fill in your email address in you Wikipedia preferences to allow people to email you without having to make an address public. Equazcion (talk) 23:56, 1 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with disclosing my email- it is camelbinky@aol.com however if you email me I would appreciate a heads-up on my talk page each time, as I dont check that email unless I'm given notice there is something to look for, so it might get buried with junk mail if I dont know to look for it. I thought your comments were fair and even-minded, nothing for you to apologize for; I dont want someone on my side just for the sake of being on my side; I respect you for being fair and speaking your mind, I wouldnt have that respect if you werent honest and fair. I will walk away from the policy talk and attempt in the future to be more brief. Thank you again.Camelbinky (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've sent you an email there. Equazcion (talk) 01:22, 2 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :-)Camelbinky (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Dmcq's "quotes" arent what the diffs say

Can you check some of the diffs that Dmcq points as me being "uncivil" there is one, I believe it is the third one listed, where he puts quotes that the diff has me calling him "are you stupid" or something like that, but the diff doesnt mention that. I believe this is further proof he says things that arent true. I know the matter should be dropped, but its that type of slander (libel) that started this; his exagerations and again he mentioned that "Camelbinky's proposal to put blocking in the lead", but I never proposed to do that I dont know where he gets that idea. If you could also point that out I would be grateful.Camelbinky (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I don't see his quote in the diff. I wouldn't feel comfortable bringing this up though at your request. If you've noticed something like that you should really bring it up yourself. Equazcion (talk) 04:06, 2 Nov 2009 (UTC)

RE: HarryAlffa's MfD

Nothing's really "backfired"; I'd notified the people that HarryAlffa had listed as parties on his page because I felt they deserved to know that they were being included. I had no intention of votestacking, but merely getting the opinions of a wider audience, especially the involved editors. If the number of messages I left was improper, it's only because the number of parties listed was so large. I was extremely careful to keep my wording short, to the point, and neutral. GlassCobra 19:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think notifying "involved parties" was prudent in this case since it isn't an actual arbcom case, just a user page, basically one that attacks those editors. It seems moot though since they voted keep anyway. But for the record I didn't intend to accuse you of anything; I wasn't questioning your motives, just saw it as a technical infringement. Equazcion (talk) 22:03, 3 Nov 2009 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but it did come across as an accusation. For the record, I will restate very clearly that nothing has "backfired," I do not see this as a personal matter of any kind. I expressed my opinion on the page, and others have expressed theirs. The discussion is simply an exchange of ideas and opinions, which is all I was trying to facilitate. GlassCobra 14:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I accused you of making a mistake. That's all that was intended. If I worded it the wrong way and it sounded like something else, I apologize. Equazcion (talk) 17:19, 4 Nov 2009 (UTC)

talk

can you hop on irc so we can chat back and forth easier? FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 06:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I prefer to keep article discussions on the wiki. Aside from not generally going on IRC, I think it's better to keep exchanges open to anyone who wants to see how decisions were arrived at and participate in those discussions. There should be no particular rush in making these decisions. Equazcion (talk) 06:09, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Hound:173...*

Please review this. The request is to change from full to indefinite semi- for the reasons given. Please read carefully. There's no sign that Hound:173.*.*.* will change. 74.242.255.53 (talk) 06:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you might have posted this to the wrong person; I don't know anything about that article's situation. Unless you're just seeking help from random people? Equazcion (talk) 06:11, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)

No, you're a resource on the behavior of Hound:173.*.*.* ...click "Please review this" above, then click "(see here)". 74.242.255.53 (talk) 06:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see. Well I don't see any problem with changing the protection level. It can always be re-upped to full protection. What exactly is your concern here? Equazcion (talk) 06:24, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Hound:173.*.*.* dogs me on everything I do (that's political) and nothing else. He's been esp. disruptive on this article. That's why I made my request and prefer the judgments of established editors, instead. There's no evidence, at all, he'll change his ways. (I'm User:Mbhiii.) 74.242.255.53 (talk) 06:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

e cigs

Sigh, I'm probably at the worst point to try and deal with heavy criticism... I've been up 22 hours (had to take a friend to the bus station, and stayed up WAY past bed time to do so). Was hoping for a quick round of reverts and a few article touchups before bed, and find out that my 'adopted' article had most of my work over the last few days ripped out of it. Downside is, I can't find anyone who's willing to be critical to help improve it in-depth, while I'm very awake, alert, and not grumpy from being so damn tired. Also, do not think any poor typing on talk pages from me constitutes poor article writing... I hold separate standards for 'talk's and 'article's. Since I'm really too tired to continue, please, make a big long list of everything you can and put it on my talk page. I'll deal with it after sleep. (This is going to be copied to your page so you're sure to see it) FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 07:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional note, its near impossible to not sound like a ruyan ad for ecigs before 2008, as it wasn't until then that ANYONE else made them, and they had been out 5 years. To this day, the few new companies that started up as competitors in china were immediately killed by ruyan, under patent enforcement. 95% of the ecigs on the market and in use are made by ruyan, NO one else is presently making them (at least the atomizers... I've seen small businesses that produce battery housings, and mouthpices that were designed for other stuff but adapted). FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 07:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see the sources you're basing this claim on, that Ruyan manufactures nearly all electronic cigarettes. With all the rebranding that goes on in that industry I've had trouble finding good information on that; and if that claim is verifiable, it should be included in the article. As far as keeping the promotional tone off the page, the main problem I think was the mention of all their awards. That stuff doesn't seem to belong at the electronic cigarette article (especially if the only source for that information is Ruyan's own website, but even if not for that). Equazcion (talk) 13:20, 7 Nov 2009 (UTC)

ANI

ANI on you Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Equazcion_MfD_with_misleading.2C_poisoning_of_the_well. HarryAlffa (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I have responded there. Equazcion (talk) 21:46, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)

ANI Thread

Thanks for the talk page revert...if you go to the latest thread on ANI, you'll see that this is a huge problem at the moment! Frmatt (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I noticed the ANI thread. I'm not sure I have anything of value to add to the discussion yet, but will when I do. I'll continue reverting for the time being. Equazcion (talk) 07:25, 9 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Was just protected by another user. Thanks for the eyes though! Frmatt (talk) 07:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Great :) and again no problem. Equazcion (talk) 07:37, 9 Nov 2009 (UTC)

On Nezzadar

It seems to be that every time that someone at FPC scolds Nezzadar by his behavior in FPC he cries and, either because he tells a new Admin every time or because he gets lucky, the Admins reviewing the case only know a very little point. It happens also that sometimes the scolder get punished as I was. The thing is that while Nezzadar is a very hard working editor, he fights vandalism day and night everywhere and does grunt work in many places; it is also true that due to his ignorance and his rude manners he creates problems in many others. The case that I can attest is the one at FPC. I will try to give some of the links. So that you have a more complete idea.

This is what he did when I started scolding/lecturing him [10]

below a line at the end I added some events that happened after that and in [11] there are some links to the diffs telling the origin of the incident. It is not that his presence in Wikipedia is a complete inconvenient. i don't know him personally (lucky me) but for his trace in Wikipedia I assume he is a video games fun that takes editing Wikipedia as one. That means that he works really hard and can do an immense numbers of things in a day but, as immense as is this number is his ignorance and bad manners and his resolution to be that way. franklin.vp 02:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

A link to more concerned users [12] franklin.vp 02:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Some select comments of yours from the diffs you've shown me, and various others mentioned on those pages: "You are trying too hard showing us all your ignorant side", "Bye bye little baby". Whoever scolded you was correct in doing so. When you feel the need to deal with a coarse user, you do not have the right to act as badly or worse than he has; whatever Nezzadar might be guilty of, what you've said has been far worse. I would also refrain from "scolding/lecturing" anyone, as you put it, because as much as calm advice can be helpful, you haven't shown good judgment in choosing the appropriate words to do so.

On Nezzadar's behavior, I would call it borderline. It's implied incivility, where technically no attack has been made, but the message is clear and provocative nonetheless. Users like that can be difficult to deal with, but nevertheless, sinking to their level will only hurt you in the end. People like this can be found in all venues of life, and we have to learn to deal with it. If you can't do that, simply do your best to avoid them, and don't think of it as your mission to keep them in line. More often than not, it's a losing battle. Equazcion (talk) 02:55, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

For some reason (maybe I am not including a link) no-one notice that those words I used were after a sequence of at least three messages in which I choose (very carefully) to avoid that. Those were in my very last message in his talk page (excluding the one asking for the link to his post in the ANI board). In any case, it seems to be that Wikipedia doesn't have the channels to deal with this kind of unintentional trolls. It seems to be that he plans to leave and if not soon every single regular of FPC will have their story with Nezzadar. franklin.vp 03:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Last message, first message, it doesn't matter. Whether you chose initially to avoid those words or not, you did use them in the end. It doesn't matter what situation led up to it. You can't say things like that on Wikipedia, ever, without expecting a good scolding, at the very least. Equazcion (talk) 03:16, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with that but the purpose of my message was not to get rid of my punishment (I have not need to be allowed to post in his talk page or engage with him). My purpose was just to see if Wikipedia had some implemented way of dealing with that his kind of behavior (the bad one, the one that is accumulating) that, as you see, is systematic and affects FPC. I want to repeat that many of his deeds are useful (delisting nominations when necessary, nominating pictures that he find everywhere in Wikipedia, closing nominations, etc.). I say this because I believe that a drastic measure (like blocking or prohibit editing FPC) is not a good idea. It will only leave another angry man out there. franklin.vp 03:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're asking if Wikipedia has a way to deal with users who flout civility by finding ways around it to maintain general unpleasantness, no, there is no such process. For all of our behavioral guidelines, there's no policy on unpleasantness (yet?). There have been and continue to be many users who choose to act this way, and there's usually nothing anyone can do about it. Sometimes they are blocked for stepping over the line though, and many leave on their own. Equazcion (talk) 03:34, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

do you mind if I put this here? [13] (look at the end) franklin.vp 01:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- You mean you want to post a link to this discussion? I don't have a problem with that, it's fine. Equazcion (talk) 01:40, 12 Nov 2009 (UTC)

No, it was a way of making you follow the link above and look at the end of the page. franklin.vp 01:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Hmm, that might be going too far. You have the grounds to start a discussion at WP:ANI, I would say. However, be prepared for a long and difficult battle. Incivility is a difficult argument to make. I'll be watching ANI for your posting, if you decide to make one; and if you do, you should post a link to it at that FPC discussion. Equazcion (talk) 01:54, 12 Nov 2009 (UTC)
On further looking into that response, the comment Nezzadar was referring to was indeed sort of "stupid", in that the author meant it to be sort of a bad joke. I'm not sure if this would qualify as incivility per se. Also, If you went to ANI, you would need to show a history of abuse, rather than just one comment. If you can produce such evidence then go for it. Equazcion (talk) 02:03, 12 Nov 2009 (UTC)

ahem

Hi there? Guess who. I have no problem with people complaining about my behavior and asking for solutions from other editors, however, it would be nice if someone told me this was here. My response is this:

1. Franklin.vp: As you have been removed from my blacklist, I have cleared you to post on my user space as long as it stays within reason. For the record, your work at FPC is quite good, and I think we can work together with no problems in the future.
2. At the conversation: Yes, my temper flares quickly and violently. I have a hair trigger. I alternate between good and bad rather frequently, and I am trying to fix it (this only occurs online, not in real life). I do not approve of my own behavior half of the time. Issue is that I don't know ahead of time that it's going to be the angry side that is posting. All I can promise is that I am going to continue working on it, and if it gets really bad, I will voluntarily take a wikibreak, however if someone suggests I take a Wikibreak, I probably will not, and can guarantee that I will respond badly.
3. Please note than any conversation taking place at ANI requires involved parties be informed. Just saying.

Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 17:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

WQA

I'm in contact with Regis over this diff -- I'm giving it a chance to be MediaWiki error before blocking. (I've fried a few diffs like that, so I'm trying not to jump the gun.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

He seems to have replaced the comment, so we should probably AGF for now. Thanks for the notification, I'll keep an eye out. Equazcion (talk) 05:29, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

ANI

I dont know what to do with the ANI or Hippo. No one uninvolved seems to want to get involved, do you know an admin you respect and trust to be fair that you would be willing to contact to take a look at my situation? Every time Hippo has gotten away with disrupting an article his next disruption has been a more blatant attack on me, now as you have pointed out it has gotten to the point of going to discussions just because I am involved in them. If he thinks he has been vindicated on this I cant even imagine what the next one is? I'm also very shaken by Dmcq's comments regarding "Camelbinky should be watched", I find that another personal attack, but I'm too tired of all of this to do anything or respond anymore. But I dont want my lack of responses to make it seem like I'm dropping this. I dont even have the heart anymore to do any editing or anything after all these attacks calling my editing into question and calling it "crap"; I have been trying to finish up this User:Camelbinky/Schoolsandbox for User:UpstateNYer and havent been able to because this just saps any want of mine to be on Wikipedia. I did a complete rewrite of Capital District (over 90-95% of the article is from me) if my edits were crap I dont think it would be such a good article. Its one thing to say I have bad "ideas", that I can take no offense at, but when they use the word "edits" that implies my editing of articles, not of talk pages.Camelbinky (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You dug yourself a bit of a hole in making your postings so long at ANI. People don't like reading through essays in order to help resolve issues; another example of why you need to work on your succinctness.

I've added an unresolved tag to the thread, which might help draw some attention. If it doesn't, and the thread ends up being archived with no resolution, it might be best to wait and see if Hippo continues with the behavior you've found to be in violation. If he does, then you'll have more evidence to back up your claim and can make a stronger case at ANI again -- and hopefully with shorter postings next time. I can pretty much guarantee that if you boil it down to the 5 or 10 sentences that are actually required to state the problem, you'll get a lot more outside involvement. Perhaps tone down the emotion too. Equazcion (talk) 06:17, 13 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I know. I have that problem, but with this going on for 8 months at so many locations I dont know how I would state my case so succinctly without Hippo twisting it.Camelbinky (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions......

Per WP:SIG#Links, you need to have at least one link to your user page (User:SylvieHorse) in your signature. You currently have no links in your signature, and it doesn't even show your actual username. This makes things a bit difficult for a number of reasons, but specifically for other editors who need to contact you. Please remedy this soon. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions. Equazcion (talk) 04:44, 13 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SylvieHorse"

What does this ^ mean???? please reply, SylvieHorse SylvieWhoReallycaresAboutHorses 19:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I fixed my username signature

I fixed my username signature, does this work:

SylvieHorse (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep that works, thanks. And thanks Nezzadar for helping them in my absence. Equazcion (talk) 14:19, 15 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Our Template

Take a look at the proposal that I made for our template: Template_talk:Dead_link_header/Proposal Tim1357 (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Fellow vaper

If you're the same Equazcion that's on the e-cig wiki, then greetings! I saw that you were one of the people who had left a comment on SmokeyJoe's page, not to mention that you're an experienced editor -- moreso than myself. I left a message on your talk page there too. :) Happy vaping!
-Garrett W. (Talk / Contribs / PM) 07:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

		Nezzadar's Rabbit of Appreciation
		Much like rabbits, vandals occur in large numbers and are considered by some to be a nuisance. However while rabbits are cute, vandals are not. For defending my user page from a vandal, and possibly also blocking said vandal, I give you "Nezzadar's Rabbit of Appreciation". Take this random award featuring an image of an adorable mammal, and let it be a sign to others that you fight the good fight. From your completely insane friend, Nezzadar ☎ .

Speedy Deletion/AfD

Thanks for the tips, Equazcion. Obviously, I didn't completely understand the process prior to nominating the artcile for speedy deletion. I would, however, like to stick with what Camelbinky proposed first and see how that plays out. If that proposal doesn't work out, I would like to see the issue of possible deletion brought to AfD. I would rather see references from secondary sources brought to the article that would make the article's subject note-worthy enough to merit an article in Wikipedia. If that's possible, great. If not, the article should be nuked, IMO, rather than continue to take up space. Thanks for your interest and assitance.

If you celebrate, have a good Thanksgiving. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In light of JoyDiamond's latest "words" regarding me...I didn't do anything to the article for two reasons: (1) Camelbinky indicated he/she might do so over the Thanksgiving weekend and (2) JoyDiamond already said nearly a week ago that *she* was working on improving the article and gathering references. She begged Camelbinky for more time to do what she said she was already doing (when Camelbinky said that he/she would give her 4 days to work on the article) because it was a holiday weekend and wouldn't be around and/or wouldn't have time to do anything Wikipedia related. Interesting, especially since she spent hours working on her talk page, creating an archive of her talk page, and editing her userpage.

I have no references available (and haven't gone looking for any) other than those provided by AFriedman. I could have, at any time over the last several days, done the article improvement and brought it up to notability standards myself with the references AFriedman provided, however, Camelbinky indicated he/she might and JoyDiamond already promised she would. So...why is JoyDiamond accusing me of witholding information? Beats me. <shrug>

In the middle of the night (this morning), JoyDiamond removed the notability tag, however, the article hasn't changed a lick since the notability tag was placed - and that's exactly why I replaced it this morning when I saw it had been removed. The article *still* brings notability into question and it will remain that way until it is improved and more references and secondary source material is presented/added. It has been established that Margaret Clark *does* meet the notability guidelines, but until the article includes what makes her notabable, the article isn't up to Wikipedia's notability standards. Until it is, it seems perfectly acceptable to me for the notability tag to remain.

--SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. And yet Skag continues her personal attacks on me without any repercussions. She has called me everything but.....nope, can't say that! A. I never beg. Ever. B. It is of no one's concern what I do when I find I have unexpected spare time and why is Skag checking on my activities and assuming minor edits took me "Hours"?? C. I never said Skag was withholding info. D. As Skag as admitted "It has been established that Margaret Clark *does* meet the notability guidelines" I see absolutely no reason for her to assume "it seems perfectly acceptable to me for the notability tag to remain." E. I would really appreciate more "Good Faith" and less acceptance of Skag's egregious and fallacious attacks and hounding. JoyDiamond (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Let it die"

If you retract your outrageous statement about all Jews being inherrently biased about the holocaust, I'm certain that people would "let it die." Hipocrite (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I said at all. I don't see any need to retract it, as it expresses my feeling on the subject (whereas your assessment above does not), nor reason to continue the ANI discussion. But as I said, you may feel free to respond to it here. Equazcion (talk) 16:53, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC)

D4D and Holocaust

This doesn't seem to be an image of Jews, as they are not circumcised.Perhaps, unless we want to expand the Holocaust to include non Jews, we should just stick to pictures of Jews for this article? Die4Dixie (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The above comment is fine.

Excuse me, but what is the point of your comment, unless you are trolling? (1) which people are not circumcized? (2) this article does as you must know include the suffering of non-Jews. Please explain. Slrubenstein Talk 19:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This comment was dumb. SLR could have said "Many Jews were not circumcised, and the Nazis killed many non-Jews as Jews." which would have answered the question D4D was asking.

Excuse me, but your comments were not civil, were the opposite of WP:AGF, and were definately uncalled for and not appreciated. If you examine the genitalia carefully, it will be self evident the corpse to which I refer. The introduction makes reference to the exclusivity in certain circles to the term. If you aren´t interested in my input, it is a big project and plenty of communist propoganda for me to rectify elsewhere. I really don´t have much more time for attitude and maudlin sensibilities.--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

And now we have the comment that is clearly unacceptable. "exclusivity in certain circles for the term [holocaust]" is problematic, but "plenty of communist propaganda for me to rectify elsewhere" {implying the Holocaust article is communist, is propaganda, and needs to be rectified} is clearly not suitable anywhere, especially on a talkpage that warns editors to keep calm and avoid flaming.

Excuse me, your saying that victims of the Holocaust are not Jewish, and making a tendentious comment about circumcision, are not civil, and are the opposite of good faith. I am sorry you cannot appreciate it. Obviously you are not going to answer my question, about which individuals specifically are not circumcised, because you cannot. Proof enough of your bad faith. Slrubenstein Talk 17:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

More SLR putting his foot firmly in it - SLR most certainly did not help this situation, and appears to be unable of understanding what D4D said.

I hope this explains why I think D4D was trolling, rather than asking for clarification or was merely dumb. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out (the communist part), I missed it. No one seems to have brought it up in the ANI discussion (including you for some reason?) Specific segments that showed trolling would have helped that discussion, no? Nevertheless, it still seems rather ambiguous to me. In my initial read-through, I assumed it to be referring to the discussion, rather than the article/subject, but I see how it could be taken that way.

As unpopular as this may make me, to be so disgusting as to possibly lend credence to such an accusation, Holocaust articles could just as easily be guilty of propaganda as any other subject. As horrific an atrocity as it was, the user could have been making an honest attempt at being excessively vigilante in making sure only real evidence is presented, rather than something that merely could pass as evidence. Assuming just intentions, he may not have been aware that the photo was verified by reliable sources. Adding the word "communist" to the mix would probably just be overdramatized frustration in that case.

I honestly think this person suffers some kind of savant syndrome. In an online forum, it can be hard to judge such people from those who intend malice. Malice is still one possible explanation, but honestly doesn't add up quite as well in my mind. There are too many mistakes present and too much overzelousness to jive with the underhanded sneaky trolling that this user is claimed to have perpetrated. Past ongoing evidence is also lacking.

That's my take anyway. Even if you disagree with this as an absolute conclusion, the possibility nevertheless exists. I think AGF demands that we don't indef for it. Equazcion (talk) 19:17, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advocacy. I understand that it is not any kind of endorcement of me or my controversy. I expect that someone will snowball close that soon. Tact has never been my strongest suit (you noticed?). This is just a wikipedia chronothusia. The admins let them take the gloves off for a night, they can say whatever they want, make all the personal attacks on one editor, and then they sent him off. After that, they are expected to behave until the next victim comes along. If I repeated the vile things that were said about me to aanother editor there now, they would block me on the spot. Don´t expend anymore of your capital and the good will of your editors. I´m marked, and already gone by the end of the day. You´ll have to work with them after today. Your a good man for what you have done. Sorry if I got in your way crashing around there. Save yourself the heartache. They call you an apologist now, and try and silence you with threats. Next it will be self hating. Take care, and if you don´t think it inappropriate, שָׁלוֹם.--Die4Dixie (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not exactly as you assess it. When someone's actions are brought into question, that user is expected to defend themselves rather than strike back in the distaste of having been accused; and if they choose the latter, the judgment generally defaults to guilty (which is unfortunate for those who don't know this, or are generally lacking in diplomatic skills). As you suspect, I'm not endorsing you per se. My involvement in this debate is more due to my seeing it as a demonstration of an underlying problem, which is why I'll likely continue pursuing it, even though I know deep down I'm not solving the problem in any lasting way. If I can change one person's mind I'd consider that a victory though. I've never been one to back down from a debate for fear of it making me unpopular. It's happened before and will likely happen again. I can only hope that other editors realize that I'm standing up for an overall good ideal that would benefit them, if they're ever on the receiving end of some similar situation, and that I would defend them just as staunchly if that happened. Equazcion (talk) 13:04, 3 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Would like some input

Good morning. If you could take the time, I would like some input on some verbiage that is being discussed at the talk page of the Margaret Clark article. If you are willing to do this, please take the time to review the current back and forth under the section "vocabulary". It is my contention that the verbiage being insisted on is unnecessary and speculative (and really a bit too flowery for an encyclopedia article, actually) whereas the other editor's opinion is that we should "trade" for which words stay. I have tried to explain that Wikipedia is not a speculation newsrag but an encyclopedia that reports facts. IMPO, I think that what's happening here is a need to "win" at all costs rather than looking to the good of the article and Wikipedia in general. I am also sending the same request to User:AFriedman. Thanks. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Good morning! Ditto on most of above. "Compromise," I thought was a good idea. "flowery" "newsrag", may be a new oxymoron. "Winning" does seem to be a major issue as it has been in the past, by simply "wearing people down," ( not my words) . "IMPO" root word imp, has me mystified and prone to fancy, explain please. I believe the "best" word for each sentence construction/meaning should be used. If you want a first class publication, you use first class words as part of the education process. The notion that Wikipedia "reports facts" is an amusing concept....An editor that has actually studied linguistics is not prone to overuse the word "verbiage" and knows that although many words may be used in place, there is usually a "perfect" word that will enhance a sentence or concept without "speculation." For the good of Wikipedia, I will stop here. Succinct is best.JoyDiamond (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

At a guess, IMPO might be the antonym of IMHO ("In My Humble Opinion"). Proud, Prideful, or some such. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

<BEEEEP> (that's a loud, game-show buzzer sounding) Sorry, wrong answer - but thanks for playing...!!! No, IMPO was my antonym for "In My Personal Opinion" (I seriously didn't think it would take this many Wikipedians screwing in a lightbulb to figure it out ;-) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

<BEEEEP> acronym. JoyDiamond (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I think I led the pack astray when *I* said "antonym" earlier — there intending "a word with the opposite meaning", as in proud-vs-humble. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, when I wrote the above, I had intended to put quotation marks around "antonym" (knowing full well that IMPO is an acronym) and adding one of these: ;-) I was in a hurry when I wrote my explanation and should know better than trying to reply on the fly <shrug>. Thanks for being willing to take the "blame", nonetheless. Your attitude here typifies some of the best of what Wikipedia editors are supposed to be <tipping my hat your direction> --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

D4D

On the principle that everyone deserves fair play and fair hearing, even if we dislike them and what they stand for, you were way out ahead on point. It must have taken moral courage, and I'm happy to have seen that example shown. Thank you. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Though my point was actually that there wasn't enough evidence to warrant jumping towards disliking him in the first place. The same evidence seems to be assigned greater value in cases that involve this particular subject matter, which I don't think is right; and is the reason I had to involve myself. I'm not sure how much moral courage it took, since it's more of a weakness of mine to stand up against perceived injustice and speak my mind. I couldn't keep my mouth shut if I tried :) Equazcion (talk) 00:39, 4 Dec 2009 (UTC)

So much for raising the intelligence bar of this discussion. If it were about who could develop the more clever and cutting line, I think I'd win. I'm totally good at that, in addition to waxing intellectica. But that's neither here nor there... right?

Based on the ever-more tortured and convoluted excuses you offered up in the face of reality, I'd say, no, not much chance of "winning" whatever game you think you're playing. You want to play the game of Fight The Power, maybe you should do it elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 13:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The point of that comment you quoted was to imply that it's specifically not a contest. In other words, I'd be good at winning if it were, but it's not about that. Hope that clarifies things. Equazcion (talk) 14:22, 4 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Calton, youve admitted in the past Jews are "non hunmans" so I dont know why you are involved in this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.51.108 (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Have a diff of that? Besides which, Calton is on the other side in this case, of the majority (over?)-sensistivity to Jewish concerns; so I'm not sure what kind of impropriety such a comment could show. Equazcion (talk) 15:31, 4 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Question

I note you have a userbox that indicates how many other editors are 'watching' you. How do you know who is watching you? I was under the impression that if you are being watched that the watchers can't be detected by the watchers...? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a newish tool that lets you see how many users are watching a page, as long as more than 30 people are watching it. You can't see who is watching, only how many there are. There's a link to it on every page's history, near the top, by "External tools". direct link. Equazcion (talk) 20:08, 6 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Never noticed it before - thanks. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Aside ...

I see you've encountered someone who believes their powers of judgment define reality. You have responded well. :-) Cheers, and happy holidays. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, it means a lot. Really. :) Equazcion (talk) 23:59, 6 Dec 2009 (UTC)

AOL Inc

So I just place {{prod}} on the page anywhere, and after five days, the software will delete it? MoodFreak (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's actually 7 days; and the software doesn't delete it, an administrator will. The point of waiting 7 days is to see if someone objects to the deletion though. If anyone does, they can remove the prod. I could give better advice if I knew which article we're talking about though. Equazcion (talk) 04:44, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I just noticed the article link in the title here. Sorry. Lemme take a look. Equazcion (talk) 04:55, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged the article for speedy deletion. Sorry if you wanted to do it yourself, but it was easier to do it myself than to explain it :) In some cases articles can be deleted this way, when there's a blatant and uncontroversial reason. For more info on that see WP:CSD. The article will probably be deleted soon by an administrator. Let me know if you have any other questions. Equazcion (talk) 05:10, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Just a note

I do apologize if I came across as overly argumentative over at the Admin Identification discussion. I sometimes am not the most eloquent person in a discussion and sometimes fail to get my point across in the first try, and end up confusing matters further by anxiously trying to clarify myself. Thanks for sticking with me to the conclusion of at least that little thought process. Shereth 16:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. As excessively argumentative as you think you were being, in my mind you're actually the first person on the opposition side who was willing to respond thoughtfully and make a real effort at getting to the heart of the issue. Equazcion (talk) 17:01, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Re Coffee

Of course you are right. I stand corrected. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for acknowledging that :) Equazcion (talk) 23:34, 10 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Also Re: Coffee

Equazcion, If anything productive results from your revert of my archiving that section, I'll eat my hat. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not revert of your archiving that section?? - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, very poor threading on my part. This was a new comment to Equazion. I've reformatted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I want a photo, Flo. And none of that "I wasn't even wearing a hat so I don't have to do it" excuse :) (he was talking to me, Ret.) Equazcion (talk) 23:14, 10 Dec 2009 (UTC)

How about "I did eat a hat, but don't have a camera"? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Then I want a stool sample showing digested hat fragments. Equazcion (talk) 23:18, 10 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather buy a camera. Seriously, though, what good do you think is going to come from all that bile? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This (When I asked for a photo it was in reference to this comment, should've provided a diff at the time). Equazcion (talk) 23:27, 10 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Real life is calling me away from the computer, but I'm somewhat concerned that you're turning out to be right and I'm turning out to be wrong. I'll see how things continue to go, and get back to you. /(goes off, looks for smallest, tastiest hat he can find, just in case)/ --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've marked it resolved in light of that diff. The truth, Flo, is that I wasn't expecting anything terribly productive either. But I wouldn't have expected anything productive to come from a relatively unknown editor's WQA brought against Coffee. New people were still feeling the need to come and comment, and I wanted to let that run its course somewhat. This result is more than I expected. (You can use bbq sauce or other condiments, if that'll make it easier.) Equazcion (talk) 23:43, 10 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I'll grant that things went better than either of us expected as far as Coffee's response is concerned, but (call it worming out if you want) there's *still* fallout from that snit-fest happening on various and sundry talk pages, somebody's probably gonna end up blocked or retired or something, so I think I'm going to call it a draw and not eat a hat. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It may not be a perfect outcome, but I'd call Coffee's comment a sign that the thread was nevertheless productive. And it would be excessively optimistic to say that had the thread been closed when you proposed, rather than after Coffee's acquiescence, that whatever fallout you're referring to would've been avoided. I think you should have to eat half a hat. Equazcion (talk) 03:11, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Yes eat a hat! _{but do not mistake your wife or any body else's wife with a hat[14]} franklin 04:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I read your feedback on the other page, and think that even if the notification was given at first, there would've been no difference - he would've still made moutain out of molehill as he would not have responded to the thread any earlier per what I said here. Still, your point is taken. I wanted to thank you for your feedback and attempts at mediating - you were effectively relaying the concerns that were repeatedly being ignored by him; that role isn't easy. Could you please alert the relevant user (who will actually read what you write) that User:Kils/Restriction continues to use the word sanction which is in conflict with what is written at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions? Thank you again, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if it didn't make a practical difference for that discussion (and I'm not saying it necessarily wouldn't have), it would've at least given anyone with an interest in complaining about it that much less to legitimately complain about :) Potentially dramatic issues are the best time to be cautious in covering one's ass. I've requested from Jehochman that he change the "sanction" wording to reflect our new understood meaning of the page. And no problem, I'm glad it more or less worked out in the end. Equazcion (talk) 19:06, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

What does this mean?

[15] It was moved from Administrator noticeboard to ANI.

Resolved. This thread has shifted from questioning the actions of a particular editor to requesting "a ruling" on content issues. As far as ANI goes, there is no issue here, and no administrator intervention is required. Equazcion (talk) 20:37, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Its one editor who won't stop arguing nonstop on the talk page, about the same issue, for months now. Would you mind reopening it? Or forwarding it to wherever you think it should be discussed at? Dream Focus 06:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't reopen the ANI, because that's not the place for what this discussion has now become. WP:WQA is the best place to discuss this now, if anywhere. However, I'm not sure if you read my comments at ANI, but I'm not really seeing a problem with Proofreader's behavior. You're free to start a discussion at WQA anyway; Nevertheless, keep in mind that in a controversial article, preventing them from becoming overrun with contentious back-and-forth material from each side can be an ongoing task. If Proofreader is arguing constantly against the inclusion of those things, I'd personally see that as something good. Is there some other problem? Equazcion ^(talk) 06:27, 14 Dec 2009 (UTC)

WP:WQA is the wrong venue for content disputes. See WP:DR instead. Even though I don't approve of some aspects of Proof's behavior, like trolling, it's unclear to me however what is the issue that Proof allegedly "won't stop arguing nonstop on the talk page, about the same issue, for months now". Pcap ping 13:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The stated Proofreader-centric "won't stop arguing" problem is the reason I said WQA. You two seem to be seeing different respective issues. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:56, 14 Dec 2009 (UTC)

He wants to add in the rape victim looked older than she was. His last attempt was [16] December 11, where he mentions how old the police said she looked. He previously argued to add in that someone else said she looked to be in her twenties. How many times does his addition of this information have to be reverted, with him flooding the talk page with so much stuff, it has to be archived once a week? Dream Focus 00:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition, another editor, Off2riorob, is once again making the case that she wasn't an innocent virgin, since she had sex with her boyfriend and alcohol before. This makes the rape less severe to him apparently. Does this violate any rules concerning information about people? Are we allowed to, without any reason at all, mention that when she was 13 she was sexually active with her boyfriend? Its done in a slanderous manner. The number of times he mentioned she wasn't a virgin, and had previously used alcohol and the sedative drug, repeatedly mentioning this over the past months, is ridiculous. Dream Focus 00:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Polanski/Archive_2 "if people want to portray her as an innocent child then the fact that she said that she was not a virgin is required to be included for balance. Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)" Mentioned CONSTANTLY. The archive search found four different archived pages, where he mentioned this, several times throughout each page. In your opinion, would adding this count as slander, and be against the Wikipedia rules? Dream Focus 00:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, DreamFocus, that was his last attempt to add the information about her looking older, BUT (listen carefully): 1) He also added information to the contrary. 2) That was his only attempt, as far as I'm aware, and 3) he reverted it himself. It was a demonstration of what he DID NOT want to see in the article. I've pointed these things out now about 3 times now, and I don't know how to make it any clearer. If you're not going to pay attention to my comments, I'll not see the point in responding anymore, and I'm furthermore inclined to assume that whatever trouble is taking place is largely your own fault. You need to open your mind and listen to other people, rather than disregard what they say and repeat yourself.
Again, as I told Pcap below, I understand that Proofreader is filling up the talk page and arguing a lot, but that alone isn't necessarily bad. As I understand it, he's arguing against the continued insertion of argumentative material from both sides. This is something that's worth arguing about. On an article like Polanski, I can see it being a very difficult task to keep argumentative statements in the article to a minimum. Frankly I think it may have driven him a little mad :) (or maybe he was mad to begin with).
As for Off2riorob, I haven't actually looked at his comments, but that would be a content dispute. I can't make a judgment call like that without examining the article and the sources. To answer your rule violation question, there's no rule against saying something that is a fact within an article. The issue is probably one of WP:WEIGHT. However it's possible Off2riorob was making a point similar to Proofreader's: Rather than actually meaning that information about her sexual experience should be included, he could rather be making the point that the stuff painting her as "an innocent child" should not be included. I can't be sure without reading through it, be this again is a content dispute, and one I'm not even a little bit authorized to "rule" on. It needs to be settled through discussion. Try WP:DR to get other people in on the discussion, if you feel more opinions are needed. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:59, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Your closure of an ANI thread

You replied to me there, and only 20 minutes later you closed the thread, so allow me a brief reply here. While I agree that Proof's actions do no require admin intervention at his time, I don't agree that his use mainspace edits weren't disruptive given that he gave the impression he approves of the POV version on the talk page. Proof has now interjected himself in an unrelated discussion I was having with Jehochman gloating how he "added it just before the lock"", referring to his ANI sonnet. I'm afraid he's got the wrong lesson from your action. In general, it's a good idea to let someone that hasn't commented on a thread to close it. Pcap ping 13:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I viewed myself as more or less objective to the issue, having not had any experience with anyone involved and never having gone near a Polanski-related article. The thread seemed to be gaining momentum in its production of tangents and drama, and being that there was no chance admin intervention was warranted, I made the call. You're right though, in general closings should be handled by someone who hasn't participated.
"The impression that he approves" of something is neither here nor there. He can approve of whatever he wants, or give any impression; that doesn't affect the article. What he actually inserts in the article (and insists on keeping there) is another story.
I'm not too thrilled about the sonnets either myself. That's exactly the kind of thing that belongs at WP:WQA though. The question of using mainspace edits the way he did also belongs at WQA, if you ask me -- the only way it would belong at ANI is if this were a longer pattern of such behavior, whereas this was a single instance (as far as I'm aware). There's not going to be any admin intervention from one such instance, so WQA is the better place to go. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:51, 14 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Re lying at ANI (and other rhetorical matters)

To put this in perspective ... let it be noted that multiple diffs were not provided (as demanded) to substantiate the beyond bullshit, outright lying, topic title attacking (if at least not naming in the title) Proofreader77. There is a larger pattern here, including the previous (which shall be proven, improper) ANI (which also was a weapon wielded in the "content dispute" regarding a high-profile currents-events inflamed BLP.)

Instead of rushing into the content dispute (including a personal attack on Proofreader77 as "pro-pedophilia, illustrating a profound POV-basis for his interrogation) Pcap should have also demanded diffs supporting the allegation.

If this is an example of Pcap's normal judgment (rather than just a momentary inspiration due to the cultural conflict on the matter that fills blogs with outrage), then Pcap must stay away from ANI.

So, Pcap stepped in a cowpile, and I documented it. And joked about it on a talk page that I have been joking about the Wikipedia Western holiday musical review this month.

I did not FOLLOW Pcap there. Like with AN and ANI, I simply watch my watchlist ... since it is clear you can't count on people to tell you when bullcrap is going on somewhere.

Strongly suggest Pcap stop jumping up and down at the injustice of it all, and attacking that "troll" Proofreader77 .. who is guilty, god help us, of the horrifying crime of being able to communicate in Shakespearean sonnet form ... and unlike his accusers, with full documentation of diffs, rather than a couple of diffs and a bucket of bullshit.

ANI shall not be used as a weapon in content disputes like this. Period. You don't like my style — make any kind of issue you wish ... but realize what you will look like doing so.

Oh, and happy holidays, in any case. (Wikipedia is a wonderful rhetorical world, which has some bad aspects. I've reverted vandalism from 5,000+ pages ... and I've devoted many many hours watching over NPOV of BLPs. You wanna have a rhetorical barfight with someone who's written over 1,000 rhetorical (not lyrical) sonnets in strict compliance with form, go right ahead. But don't expect there won't be laughter. :-) See that word "happy" in "happy holidays"? lol Don't forget it. Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, Proofreader, I find your rhetorical rants and sonnets rather unamusing, unhelpful, and inflammatory. Your eagerness to (over)state your own linguistic abilities don't make me any more inclined to condone them. You're suggesting that others have a problem with you because of your "being able to communicate in Shakespearean sonnet form" (emphasis added), implying that "they're just jealous"; but I'd take another look if I were you. Since you're so educated and literate, examine classic stories involving people who have said similar things when criticized.
No one has a problem with your "sonnet writing" ability. They object to your use of it in communication on Wikipedia. I'm sure there are many people with poetic and lyrical ability on Wikipedia, but they don't communicate that way; and for good reason. This isn't the place for it. I for one, if I see it again, will take the matter to WQA myself.
"Cowpiles, bullshit, bullcrap"; these are obviously not helpful characterizations of your opponents and their arguments. "Rhetorical" in this case is just another word for "self-serving". It does no one any good, other than you. I think you happen to be "right" in this case, but "right" won't hold you for very long without some tact and diplomacy to go with it. If you want to garner support, I'd seriously consider altering your strategy. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:20, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Dear Equazcion, I do understand your perspective. The only (light) note I will add to this is to ask you to imagine if you had spent two months explaining what you have already explained (I think you have a some experience of that :) — perhaps, then, even you might be ready to write your own sonnet — and, by the way, I believe that anyone can.

Consider a Vietnam vet who didn't know how to shape his experience in prose — but, given the constraints, of the sonnet form, was able to tell his story. And high school students who were given the choice to write their final essay in prose or rhetorical sonnet form (not poetry, rhetorical verse), chose almost to a one to write in sonnets.

As I think I mentioned, there will most likely be an Arbcom about several things, and if you'd like to use that opportunity to make a case against what I do, let me know, and you can join the party. Based on your actions at ANI, there is no reason for you to be there (unlike, perhaps, Pcap) — but if you choose to now make it your mission to stop me from ever writing a rhetorical sonnet when the moment is appropriate, then yes, we will have to have that issue resolved.

You can also choose otherwise, or even, as mentioned above, write your own. (I can give you a link to a Shakespearean form sonnet verifier if it ever strikes you to do such an outlandish thing.) For now, adieu, and Merry Christmas. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You're saying you have a valid excuse for making inflammatory remarks -- you're frustrated over a longstanding issue. That's understandable, but only to a point. You're still responsible for your actions, despite what led to them, and it's your responsibility to mitigate the damage. If continuing to participate in the Polanski dispute will necessarily cause you to act inappropriately, then you should remove yourself from it. I've gotten irritated before from having to deal with difficult and repetitive issues on Wikipedia, and in some cases acted out, making self-serving reflexive remarks; and I was similarly admonished for them. That's when it's time to take a break, at least from the contentious issue, if not from Wikipedia altogether. I'm not sure if you're merely burned out, or if it's a combination of that plus being generally, irritatingly eccentric and pompous. Luckily I don't need to make that call. Whether there's an arbitration case in the future is neither here nor there. Your manner of communication is something that is relevant to WQA, and I will take the matter there if I continue to see evidence that it's warranted. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:35, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Note: The current form of ANI encourages online bullying. The presumed license to describe others negatively (without the diffs, just vague aspersions), force them to accept that description, apologize, comply etc ... is emotionally rewarding to some. Most subjected to that bow. Some react negatively sufficiently they can be easily excluded. Others understand the social forces in play, and respond effectively to counter such behavior at the level of structure appropriate. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The translation of that would be "They sank to that level, therefore so shall I". The only way such a response "effectively counters such behavior" is to make the victim feel better. The more effective response would simply be to request diffs, while keeping quiet otherwise, to allow the possibility that third parties can admonish the accuser's behavior. There's no chance they would do that, though, if the victim responds in kind, or worse. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:03, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)

question about policy

Hi, do you remember what is that policy or guideline of Wikipedia that talks about trying to avoid things like: "X is the best of ... ", "X is the most important ...", at least when there is not reference saying that explicitly? franklin 14:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're looking for WP:Avoid weasel words. :) Equazcion ^(talk) 14:30, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)