User talk:Texture/Archive-2006 August

Regarding Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Democratic Ideals[edit]

I've withdrawn my vote and replaced it with No vote. My original vote was probably misinformed, but I have enough questions about the original VfD and not enough time anymore to really look into it, so I might as well just remove myself from the original VfU. If I happen to scrounge up more time these next few days to look into it, I might just change my vote, but not for now. Thanks for your message! --Death phoenix 20:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Democratic Ideals[edit]

You are correct, there are 6 delete votes listed. I think i missed the nominators vote. However I think that User:Stirling Newberry pretty much has to be read as a keep vot, making this 6D to 4K, for what that is worth. You may quote me. DES ^(talk) 20:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out my counting. I've done a more careful recount, and halfway-revised my vote. Given the closeness of the decision to two-thirds coupled with a rewrite, I think it should return to VfD in its present form (which implies an undeletion). -Splash 03:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you posted a message to me?[edit]

24.147.97.230 What do you want? 24.147.97.230 17:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acne site articles[edit]

Sorry about the links, I thought it was allowed. I won't pplace them anymore,

Warm regards,

Michael

We'll surrender if you take Celine Dion back[edit]

Thanks for the words of support and the laugh! Cheers, DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change to CSD A7[edit]

Hi there. I just reverted your addition of the "or group" words to WP:CSD A7. The recent poll was quite specific and the proposal only applied to real people. There were no fewer than 3 bands (which is what I suppose you mean) propsals, each of which failed, unfortunately. Best to take changes to CSDs to the talk page first. -Splash 01:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C where a future proposal to deal with non-notable bands is under intermittant discusion. DES ^(talk) 12:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I thought it would clarify but didn't recall that the votes were so seperate and specific. - Tεx τ urε 14:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my vote to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C - Tεx τ urε 14:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I wasn't quite clear. Proposal 3-C was voted down. Additional votes are not being collected at this time. Several people are using the talk page for the old proposal to try to polish a new proposal that might get support in the future. At the moment, what is needed there is discussion, rather than votes -- tell us if our current ideas seem like good ones to you, and if not, what you think might be improved about them. When and if people are ready to propose this formally again, it will probably be moved to a new page with a name not connected to the failed proposal. DES ^(talk) 15:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Func's RfA :)[edit]

Texture, aka TANSTAAFL, thank you for supporting my adminship! Your support meant alot to me, very much appreciated! :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e, ) 19:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sorry[edit]

Hi, im sorry for that. I will never do this again!

Requesting assistance in handling disruptive behavior.[edit]

I would greatly appreciate if you look into the mess created in the article Rohingya. This is quite an interesting issue; a few months ago, I removed the copyvio and then organized the article into sections and cleaned up the links. For some reason, several anon editors in the block 212.138.47.* seem to take offence at my "touching" "their" article, and started vandalizing my user/talk pages. Some of these vandals were blocked by other admins.

Last week, these vandals created several sockpuppet accounts, including Antirajib (talk · contribs). You can see from the account name what its purpose was. The user vandalized my user/talk pages besides leaving abusive comments. The user was blocked immediately.

Yesterday and today, there has been a parade of sockpuppets all directed at either launching personal attacks, or avoiding 3RR. You can find several incoherent rants in Talk:Rohingya, my talk (User talk:Ragib and Mel's talk User talk:Mel Etitis. The language constructs and the irrational attitude ("how-dare-I-touch-their-article-being-a-Bengali" etc) points out a single user behind all these.

I find the following accounts as sockpuppets of the same vandal from the ip block 212.138.47.*, especially (212.138.47.13/14/15/16/17/18/21).

I urge everyone to take a look at the page history, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rohingya&curid=1918632&action=history . This is not even a dispute over content! I have not added or deleted any content other than the initial copyvio. I simply organized the article with sections, and cleaned up the external links. One of the links point to a blog, which the vandals ferociously object to as being termed a blog. I've gotten literally tired of the abuse these vandals launched on me. The level of racial and personal abuse is quite hard to take. Since it would be a conflict of interest in my part to take actions against these vandals, I would request you to look into this issue and decide.

Thanks a lot. --Ragib 13:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat[edit]

I think the project would be better served by additional bureaucrats and I'd like to suggest that you'd be perfect for the job. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honored that you think of me for the position. I'm going to go read up on the guidelines and duties. It doesn't seem like a job that requires too many people. Is there a need for more Bureaucrats? - Tεx τ urε 02:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is, due to the relatively few who are active in RFA matters. You might want to read the note I left for Michael Snow, who asked me a similar question. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. :) Func( t, c, e, ) 03:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many Thanks[edit]

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 17:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NSK[edit]

Thank you. I was really asking NSK to explain his own behavior, which makes no sense. I assumed that he was violating his own copyright, or gaming a system, or spamming. I will probably sign the RfC in 24 to 48 hours. It is just very strange, even as strange behavior on Wikipedia goes. Robert McClenon 17:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting[edit]

Hello. Your revert deleted my link to User:Neolux, my IDRIVE notice and my POV-check notice. I have now made these edits again, since I see nothing wrong with them (the page is listed at the relevant Wikipedia project pages), and it is not required to get support in talk page in order to add IDRIVE and POV-Check notices, but if I am wrong please give me links to Wikipedia policy. I won't add the Criticism section again until I get support from other users. Wikinerd 03:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and reverts from other users indicate that you do not have support for your changes. This has nothing to do with policy other than that you could garner consensus for your changes if they are opposed. I am acting as a user just as you are. - Tεx τ urε 14:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CoS page may be needing some help over the next few days. Again?[edit]

Check out the CoS discussion page for details.

Scott P. 03:16, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

VfU[edit]

I won't be re-deleting any articles which are created after valid deletions any more. Let the people who keep making up the rules as they go along deal with it. Zoe 04:16, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking about dropping out of this myself and just documenting what I can. This is going to have to be sorted out at a higher level I think. - Tεx τ urε 14:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hello, person I've never talked to.
I'll be brief - Is this true?. Do six undeletes count as WP:3RR violation?
brenneman ^(t)^(c)

Looking back I think it was only 4 undeletes rather than 6. If one admin undeletes and one or more admins redelete then anyone reverting (by deletion or undeletion) within 24 hours is in violation of 3RR. No one ever said it doesn't apply to admins and deletes and undeletes are just another way of editing. - Tεx τ urε 14:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re-closing an improperly closed VfD.[edit]

Hi. I was mistaken; I think I was thinking of the events surrounding Historical persecution by Jews, when Neutrality re-closed as "delete" an article that Sjakkalle had closed as "keep". Tony commented on that debate, but opposed the "re-close." So my bad. Nandesuka 15:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The situation on that occasion was not dissimilar. I opposed the attempt to re-close, I opposed the attempt to petition VFU as unnecessary, and I didn't get involved in the second VfD. I'm of the opinion that VfD's should probably not be reclosed because it brings the entire process into disrepute. An article that really desperately needs to be deleted would match the speedy criteria. An article that is not that drastically bad, but nevertheless is deletable, will probably be deleted sooner or later anyway. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 07:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Schwarz and 3RR[edit]

Please take a look at the recent edits by 195.3.113.139 (talk · contribs), 195.3.113.141 (talk · contribs), 195.3.113.142 (talk · contribs), 195.3.113.152 (talk · contribs), and 195.3.113.154 (talk · contribs); all of these IP addresses appear to be the same person. How would you suggest handling this situation? Hall Monitor 17:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I followed your links and I like the approach you took at User talk:195.3.113.139. Since the user's IP rotates and this IP appears to have had the most use by the same user it follows as a good location to discuss the user's actions. I agree that all these IPs are in use by the same user as indicated by identical edits on the same article.

You have set an initial foundation giving notice to the user that his initial edits are being interpreted in good WP:FAITH and informing the user of proper process in an open source editing environment. Should the user continue acting badly, you are now justified in elevating to vandalism warnings for future disruptions. Should it continue after that you are no longer dealing with a difference of opinion, but a vandal, and can act accordingly - no need to wait for three reverts before blocking a returning vandal.

The only variation on this would be if the user chooses to discuss their edits on the talk page. If that occurs you have to return to WP:FAITH and deal with them as a valid user who needs to learn compromise. Multiple reverts in this situation becomes a WP:3RR violation and results in a warning, then a 24 hour block.

That's what I would do. - Tεx τ urε 18:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VFU/VFD debacle[edit]

Please see my and Rossami's talk page and give your comment. R adiant _>|< 14:44, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Please visit WP:VFU's talk page - I've put up a formalized proposal and would like your opinion. R adiant _>|< 10:01, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Vfd trouble[edit]

Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) continues to behave strangely with respect to VFD closings - in particular, relisting any discussion with less than five votes even if they all vote the same (e.g. here), thus unilaterally creating a quorum policy, except when he already agrees with the outcome e.g. here; closing 3del/3redir results as "keep"; and closing VFDs as keep when he in fact already merged or redirected the article. I believe this to be misleading at best, WP:POINT at worst. Any suggestions on how to deal with this? R adiant _>|< 23:06, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi constitution[edit]

Nice work! –Hajor 23:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, and for the thumbs-up. On reflection, you're probably right about not editing the AP's translation, even though (see the links I added at the bottom of the article) is does appear to be a rush-job and not terribly faithful. Let's hope another, better translation emerges at a later date -- hopefully before Oct 15. Pictures? I'll keep my eyes open. Something PD on some .gov site, perhaps? Cheers, –Hajor 20:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers[edit]

It's helpful for navigation, and all the LETTER (A,B,C,...) articles have similar links. We do not have 0 (glyph) or 0 (numeral), so the most appropriate place to link it is at 0 (number).

As it is undergoing AfD, it is not currently deleted, so why are you removing the link? You should wait for it to be deleted first. 132.205.3.20 21:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In case no one noticed, 0...9 are not just numbers, or numerals, they're also general use symbols. The pages lack any such knowledge. 132.205.3.20 21:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What you are trying to add to all of the articles benefits none of them. Someone looking for "G9" is not going to look under 9. - Tεx τ urε 21:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone looking for G9 might look for 9G. 132.205.3.20 21:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone looking for 9G isn't going to type in "9" - Tεx τ urε 21:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, someone could be looking for some sort of index. (which is what the list is really, an index). You should look at the A...Z articles, they do have things like this. 132.205.3.20 18:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of contested Zarius' vote[edit]

I think you probably shouldn't have done that. There does exist a Zarius and it would be easy enough to ask him if he cast the vote. He's been a member for yonks but seldom seems to log in any more. In any case it's bad form to deliberately tamper with any user's vote--technically it can be a blockable offense if engaged in egregiously. It is fairly common for editors who don't log in to sign themselves in votes with their logged in username. The closing sysop can go through the history examining the provenance of every single vote, have often done so in close or contentious votes. It's regarded as okay to add a note to dodgy votes like this "non-logged in user giving unverified signature" or something like this.

Would you agree to revert your removal and instead add a not to that effect? --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 22:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had hoped he would see my edit summary and log in if it was him. I will instead leave a note directly for Zarius in addition to a note in the VfD asking for the closing admin to confirm a possible vote from Zarius. I will not restore the vote since I find it suspicious. Since when does a user accidentally vote while not logged in but remember to fake a ~~~~? Regardless of my suspicions I should follow up and apologize to Zarius if I am incorrect. - Tεx τ urε 14:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair enough, though I'd be happier if you didn't remove votes. If you do it, and everybody knows you and trusts you, then others less scrupulous or simply less experienced could feel that it's okay to remove votes. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 14:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it is appropriate to remove a falsified vote but in this case I may have jumped too quickly. Perhaps in the future I will strike or otherwise quaranteen a suspicious vote rather than deleting and only completely remove when I can be certain that it was vandalism/identity theft. - Tεx τ urε 15:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Logged out[edit]

FYI, I have on a number of occasions when doing a long edit or retriving links from other pages (or just gettign up for a steach) been auto-logged-out, and only discovered this after clicking save and seeing that my four tildas expanded to an IP instead of my user name. It is easy for this to happen. DES ^(talk) 15:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd expect that. Would you, while unknowningly logged as an anon, fake a ~~~~ for your logged in account? Twice on the same VfD from different IPs? I think there is a 50% chance I'm wrong but it's just odd. - Tεx τ urε 16:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I misunderstood the situation. I might, if I realized I was logged out and didn't want to bother to log back in, sign as "-DES". I wouldn't bother to create a link that looked like my noraml sig, no. Of course, some users have dynamic IPs so the different IPs may mean nothing. DES (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The different IP numbers don't mean anything. The faked/manually created sig was the odd thing. - Tεx τ urε 16:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on lists[edit]

Well, I wasn't intending on adding comments there. Someone added a new entry, and when I pressed save, the whole transclusion thing blew up in my face, as it is ought to do sometimes. Instead of saving it on the transcluded subpage it got tacked onto the primary page beneath the new entry. You should have noted that I cleaned up my mess before you made your comment. 132.205.3.20 18:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fake vote for Apocolypse Pooh[edit]

You were right, that vote wasn't made by me - I've been around for a while, but very on and off over the years. Thanks for the note.

Regards, Zarius 08:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war + vandalism = Barbara Schwarz[edit]

This article is getting out of hand - and I can't even count the number of violations that have cropped up on the talk page alone. Things have been said about User:Vivaldi and especially User:Tilman that may open WP up to a charge of libel if they are left up, not to mention that the perpetrators seem to be engaged in a one-page smear campaign against Wikipedia itself.

We need HELP. 206.114.20.121 18:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please help by voting to remove the Barbara Schwarz article. Tilman insists on entering claims which have not been attributed to reliable sources and he has a past history of personally "attacking" Barbara on USENET for the last several years. --AI 21:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight: Barbara's personal attacks on USENET against Tilman and Tory Christman and David Touretzky and Barb Graham and Fredric Rice and Dave Rice and Andreas Heldal Lund and Rick Ross don't count against her. But God forbid ANYONE should speak a discouraging word against Barbara, or you'll rip them to shreds. 206.114.20.121 18:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see two problems with Barbara. First, she often dumps huge texts, like the one you moved today (thank you). These texts are often irrelevant to the dispute. Second, she doesn't log in, and usually doesn't sign her articles, which makes it confusing. I know that one doesn't have to log in, to encourage new users to contribute. But with Barbara this brings chaos. Tilman 22:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Tilman[reply]

Also, you should look at Tilman's history. He can also be a problem and has removed comments by others and does not apply NPOV as his edits to this article are mainly to make Barbara look crazy. --AI 02:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not his edits that make her look crazy. 206.114.20.121 18:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am a contributing editor of Wikipedia[edit]

Hello,

I am a contributing editor of the Wikipedia Open Source Project. I am attempting to add one valuable resource under one topic. I am adding a "gambling directory" in a category that does not have one. Wikipedia Rules: (OK to add: Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open).

If it is deemed that the nuetral information that I add is "spam" or "commercial" in nature. Then I will contribute in another way. I will remove blatant commercial links from other categories. Wikipedia Rules: 1. BE BOLD in updating pages. Go ahead, it's a wiki! 2. Ignore all rules, including this one.

For example, the category online casino has a section for Blacklisted Casinos. Having this section that only points to commercial sites, without offering an area for white listed casinos, does not convey a NPOV (rule #3). Another example is the category Bet Exchanges. This category is loaded with mostly commercial links to various Bet Exchanges.

If the one relevent nuetral link that I am trying to add in the category "gambling" is considered spam or commercial in nature. I feel it is my duty to remove other spam or commercial links as a contributing wikipedia editor.

Sincerely,

Trail Guide

Thank you for your note. I have seen your recitation of Wikipedia rules embedded in one of your edits. Being bold does not allow you to violate the WP:3RR rule in an attmept to impose the will of one individual (you) over all the others who believe your link (only one website) is an advertisement and does not add to the numerous articles you have added it to. You must gain some kind of consensus instead of trying to overrule the community with your opinion. In addition, do not blank sections without discussion. This is considered vandalism and will get you blocked from editing. Please try to obey all the rules of Wikipeda and not the ones that agree with your action. - Tεx τ urε 16:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Practice what you preach[edit]

Hello,

The discussion board, for the article "gambling", has not had a post in it since June of 2004 (over one year). Exactly how does this consensus discussion take place?

What do you mean "numerous articles you have added it to"? I am trying to add one relevant nuetral link to one article. It was removed within hours of it's original posting.

Please describe for me why you think my link "Gambling Directory," which leads to an open directory that anyone can post their gambling related site in, is SPAM or commercial in nature, while you allow the various links I mentioned in my last message.

Have you even visited the link I posted? What consensus was taken to remove the link I added? There have been exactly two visitors from wikipedia.org this entire month, one of which was me testing the link. So, what consensus was taken to determine that the link I added should be removed?

Having one visitor from wikipedia.org, but 5 or 6 people making a consensus to remove an edit, is a much more serious violation of the 3RR rule. "Using sockpuppets (multiple accounts)is not a legitimate way to avoid this limit, and the policy specifically does not apply to groups."

Here is what I suggest to you. Please try to obey all the rules of Wikipedia and not the ones that only agree with your action.

Sincerely,

Trial Guide

If your edits are reverted more than a dozen times by many people then it is a sign you should make your case on the talk page. When I say "numerous articles" I am including the articles you edited as an anonymous IP. Please discuss specifics on the talk page of the articles you are interested in. - Tεx τ urε 17:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

Hi! Don't take my comment on Talk:Gambling as a criticism, I am happy that you keep removing the spam. But as I read the 3RR, you may only make 3 reversions on a single article per 24h period. It doesn't matter whether you revert one editor or multiple, or whether you revert different parts of the article. Actually, by the other measure User:Trail Guide wouldn't be in serious violation of the 3RR since he has reverted me one time, you 4 times and Ahorsteimer 3 times. Rasmus (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of VfU[edit]

Considering the Harry Potter trolling VfU discussion and several recent ones, it's time we revived the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU and dealt with the question directly. You were involved in the original discussion and your remarks on this VfU suggested you might nevertheless want to chip in, so I thought I'd let you know. We'd got about as far as simplifying the immediately preceding discussion and then things sort of stalled. Anyway, I've started a new section on that Talk: page. -Splash 21:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

rfc policy[edit]

This [1] text you removed isn't changing policy in anyway, it is reporting what it currently is. How is consensus needed to report the facts of policy? FuelWagon 22:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TLAs[edit]

A proposal has been made at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move TLAs from AAA to DZZ and other related pages to Wikipedia namespace. Please visit Talk:TLAs from AAA to DZZ for the related discussion. -- Francs2000 | Talk 00:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recent VfU changes[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#"Purpose of the page" section and the history of Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. I would appreicviate more people being involved in this matter. DES ^(talk) 16:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: Xixax[edit]

Well, we're supposed to be discussing the facts and evidence of the article, not "voting". But yes, pending overwhelming evidence to the contrary, my opinion is currently that the article should be deleted. Rossami (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

see message ... i'm posting concerning the removal of an external link in Rick Barry section

Credit[edit]

Thanks, Texture. I try to be honest mainly for selfish reasons: dishonesty clutters the mind. Marsden 15:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like that. - Tεx τ urε 15:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg enforcement[edit]

Texture --

It may well be fruitless to have Jayjg blocked; as you note, there is no lack of people to stand in for him.

However, I think Jayjg and company are doing something very dishonest: they are re-writing history. See this for my comments on that matter. It may be that, within the rules of Wikipedia, they cannot be stopped. But this, in my opinion, is not sufficient reason not to try to stop them. It is, quite simply, the right thing to do.

I will, as you note, probably fail in this. When that happens, I will wash my hands of Wikipedia for ever and go on. But I think Wikipedia is a good idea, and I would dislike deciding that it is, ultimately, a failed enterprise.

And, getting Jayjg blocked would at least be a small victory, which might keep the spark alive that one day will lead to the right thing finally happening. Jayjg has cast many aspersions at other users, many related to their rule-violation statuses. It would be a nice, if small, splash to leave in the history of Wikipedia to note that this is in many respects the pot calling the kettle black. Maybe one day the remote ripples from that splash will meet up with ripples from elsewhere and form a wave.

Plus, he deserves it. He has, in my opinion, violated the terms of the remedies, and I have never seen him hesitate to enforce rule violations on anyone else, and even to make veiled threats related to violation hearings.

Your comments on developing a compromise are spot on, but I've already attempted that.

I assert to you that I am trying to do the right thing; care to lend a hand?

Marsden 16:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what I can do. I haven't formed an opinion on the issue and the discussion is at a very detailed level. I don't exactly understand what the disagreement is about. Are you objecting to a redirect of Occupied Territories (Israeli) to Occupation_of_the_Palestinian_territories? Your comment worries about not finding "Occupied Territories" in a search of Wikipedia but won't that search still find the redirect of that name (even though it points to Occupation_of_the_Palestinian_territories)? The revert war seems to be on another issue that I can't find a distinction to determine the differences.

Regardless, a revert war gains no sympathy or support and only polarizes people before there is any chance to compromise. This is why I suggested a page protection. That may force all to sit down and find middle ground. - Tεx τ urε 16:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turning Occupied Territories (Israeli) into a redirect removes all the information that previously was in the article. And Occupation_of_the_Palestinian_territories nowhere mentions that "Occupied Territories" has been broadly used as a synonym for the territories captured and controlled by Israel after the Six-Day War. And the link to this page at Occupied Territories, which Jayjg has reverted to several times, avoids any mention that "Occupied Territories" has been broadly used as a synonym for the territories captured and controlled by Israel after the Six-Day War. I think that this alone constitutes, prima facie, a violation of the prohibition from the arbitration. To make the violation even more egregious, he made it repeatedly in a revert war with me, including in one instance violating 3RR temporarily (he reverted his own revert to avoid this).

You are an administrator, Texture: what you can do is block him for 24 hours for violating the remedy of the arbitration. The terms of the remedy serve as his warning. You can at least rule and act on that without digging into very many details.

You may look to this synopsis to get just a rough idea of how much effort, without even getting into all the discussions, I have put into addressing Jayjg's various objections. The only conclusion I can make with regard to his actions is that Jayjg is trying to keep any link from existing that would direct a search on "Occupied Territories" to the information that the term is commonly used to refer to the territories captured and controlled by Israel after the Six-Day War, and that his discussions with me have mostly been in bad faith: he offers as "compromise" that I accept his preferred arrangement of the relevant articles (sometimes offering that the "OT(I)" article be left as is but orphaned) while the matters are "discussed," and yet his "discussions" are generally repeating his positions on facts and terminology ad nauseum, ignoring any and all objections.

Marsden 17:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't plan to enforce the arbitration decision myself since I have been in active discussion with you on this and Jayjg on other matters. I feel that a neutral admin should take any necessary action.

What I would like is a compromise between the conflicting parties. Revert wars don't get anywhere. I am going to revisit Occupation_of_the_Palestinian_territories since I am surpised that "Occupied Territories" is not referenced. Can you bullet list what wound need to be included if the articles are merged? (The edit history would be merged but I assume you are saying some content would be lost.) - Tεx τ urε

To be honest, I don't think anything at the current Occupation_of_the_Palestinian_territories article warrants saving. It is mostly editorializing, and the direct facts that it does contain are poorly organized, incomplete, and in many instances not relevant. I think that the pre-deletion Occupied Territories (Israeli) article has everything that should be included, and has it in a reasonable format. There is certainly room to expand the "Contentious Term" section, and more on the many, many related disputes, but I think the necessary and sufficient characteristics for a merged article are all there: a simple statement of the meaning of the term; a short history of events affecting the meaning of the term; and then discussion of the context and history of the term and its use. Also, the noun in the title should be "Territories," not "Occupation." The territories, at least, are at some level tangible things; the occupation is in dispute before any facts can even be stated about it. In anticipation of the re-deletion of the "OT(I)" article, here is a link from the history: Revision as of 19:11, 19 September 2005. Marsden 18:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stochastic Integral[edit]

Texture, I'd like to delay responding to you on the Stochastic Integral article until I find out what action is taken regarding Jayjg. Thanks. Marsden 17:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I need to revert the blanking until then. (Deleted is ok and your article is ok but blank is not.) Let me know what you decide. - Tεx τ urε 17:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete the article. Thanks. Marsden 18:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"ArbCom" decision[edit]

Texture, here is the message I received from Jayjg regarding this matter:

Aside from the fact that re-directing a POV fork back to its original page is not "removing adequately referenced information from Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles", the Arbitration Committee ruling also only applied to me for the period of my editing restrictions, which was 0 days. The Committee has clarified this, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests. I regret that you have personalized this conflict to me, and that you feel that your role is to recruit allies in an attempt to war with others or punish me in some way, rather than focussing on resolving conflict on the Talk: page. I feel you have rejected my many honest overtures and requests that you try a more collegial path to dispute resolution. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wash my hands. Marsden 18:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cutco Article[edit]

I know you're busy but I was hoping to get your help. I am dealing with an anon user on the Cutco page who insists on a NPOV tag when no one is stopping him/her from making edits (just as long as they're cited) and no one is discussing anything (there just isn't a problem). I think the user just didn't like my one revert and is retaliating for not getting his/her way the first time around. I've already been accused of being a Cutco salesperson! LOL Could you take a look at the talk page and let me know if I'm the wrong one and how you would handle this situation? Anything you can add to the discussion would also be helpful. I just can't figure out what this person's deal is and I don't think that he/she is using the tag properly and want to take it off. Thanks for your help.Gator1 18:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are so the MAN/WOMAN!!! Thanks for the help, it is greatly appreciated. Let ME know if I can ever do anything for YOU. :) Gator1 19:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this nice (unsigned) response from the anon user. Starsts out OK, then gets ugly and very uncivil. I'll warn, but I think a short time out to cool off is appropriate here, but you know better:

Look, I'm sorry I hadn't added any reference material, although later on I did provide a link and the NPOV tag was still disputed. Overall, I feel as if I've been greatly bullied, mocked, and made to look like an idiot.

I'm rather pissed right now. So I'm not going to put it lightly you've destroyed a great deal of confidence I've had in Wikipedia. I flat-out hate your guts. You're on my shit list now, bitch. Go to hell.

And you really, really need to stick those knives as far up your ass as physically possible. Remember, it's pointed-end first.

Nice huh?lol Gator1 12:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I requested a block and Shane denied it. You cna see his response. Here's what I said to him on his talk page:

I respect your decision, but he only edits a little bit every day and then comes back every 24 hours, so he'll be back 24 hours from his last edit and make more threats. I will respect your decision, but just wanted you to know that.Gator1 14:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tht's hi spattern, once every 24 hours. So he'll ocme back and do it again. I'm sure of it, because he thinks there's nothing wrong with it. Anyway, just would love to have your opinion on this and am worried about having a vandal coming after me. I don't think I did anything wrong. Do you?Gator1 14:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't doing anything wrong. I am surprised that someone sophisticated enough to understanding POV tags isn't able to detail his objections. All I see are links and no presented recommendations. What I have seen from your edits is an ability to compromise and include some criticism. If he will only tell us what he wants it might be good to add. Hopefully we can convince him to work with us instead of stomping off without a discussion. - Tεx τ urε 15:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm going to jus ignore him that best I can. I have no desire to pick a fight. I'll report him again if he keeps it up, though. Thanks again, you've been a great help.Gator1 15:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ragdoll[edit]

I need your expertise again...sorry :( On the [[Ragdoll] page it seems that someone has deleted the picture that used to be the main pic for the article. I have my suspicions (it happened right when someone wanted to replace it with another) but is there anyway you could take a look at this and maybe figure out what happened to it, who did it and why? I have no clue what to do in this area. It just seems fishy! Thanks!Gator1 20:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, figured it out. Thanks.Gator1 21:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anon user[edit]

The "Aiur" reference is from the old computer game (maybe new) called Starcraft. Played it a lot when I was in college. I actually giggled when I saw it. Sorry about the test4, I just didn't like seeing that happen to you, you're agood apple, and I got carried away. Thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow.Gator1 23:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Kerry[edit]

Hello Texture, thanks for the message on my talk page. I did not know about John Kerry's Jewish heritage. I definitely think that this information should find its way into the article. However, I still question applyin the Jewish Category tag. While it would be accurate in a sense, it is also misleading in a sense. I would wager that most readers would understand the tag to be referring to a religious affiliation and practice. What about the creation of a "Jewish (Ethnic)" or "Jewish Heritage" category, instead? Johntex\^talk 21:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is great - thank you. It will be interesting to see what they say at the Category: Jewish American talk page. I think I will go over there and express my opinion that there should be two categories. Best, Johntex\^talk 21:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I received a message from you about "commercial speech" in the bet exhange entry I expanded upon.

Clearly the current 'bet exchange' listing is largely betfair propaganda (about liquidity favoring betfair, etc), and it is simply a necessary factual extension of the current bet exchange entry to discuss the only player in the US bet exchange market with a legal offering (BetBug). Happy to discuss further, but if you're monitoring commercial speech, either delete the betfair entries or allow BetBug if you wish to remain unbiased!!

Removal of Chinese Commentary[edit]

I see that you've edited the page on Ward so that the Chinese Wiki contributor's negative comments about the man are no longer there. I think that it should be reverted, simply because he was expressing the prevalent view of Ward in China, and had actually at one point deleted my "western" summary of Ward with his own.

Having both a Western and a Chinese perspective provides insight into how the two cultures separately view the man and his legacy, and if nothing else, forestalls some offended Chinese person from deleting the current summary, which is Western in perspective.

If you don't revert it, I will plan to do so, not because I agree with the Chinese view, but because it is value to see it and understand it, whether it comes from a "citable source" or not.

I'd be happy to include something if there was a factual citation behind it. Can you reference any news articles rather than a vague "view of Ward in China"? Wikipedia does not include opinions and must have citations in order to include general views. - Tεx τ urε 17:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Our recent discussion[edit]

Have a beer, pal!

I'm very glad we were able to remain civil and respectful through the entire discussion, and never considered us to be anything other than friends discussing an issue. As you can tell, I'm very strong in my belief of "assume good faith" and prefer that everyone remains exceptionally courteous at all times. "Courtesy in the face of any insult" is a personal goal, even as I show the malevolents the door.

When people post unsolicited reminders of what not to do, especially where instructions are being followed to the letter, it strikes me as mildly counter to both AGF and courtesy. It is not necessary or desirable to set up any part of Wikipedia as a nanny state, so I will sometimes make comments that express that opinion.

Now, for the benefit of any third party readers, Texture did not offend my sense of courtesy, did not violate "assume good faith" nor did he attempt impose a nanny state. We had a discussion of the relative merits of unsolicited reminders of policy, and I wanted to enforce our good relationship with a message here. Un focused 22:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel left out... I never had a nanny as a child. (Not even the TV-nanny. The antenna only got three channels.) A very nice note - I look forward to the next discussion. Thanks for the beer! - Tεx τ urε 22:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if the discussion includes me or not. But, Texture, I owe you a thanks for explaining my actions better than I did. -Splash^talk 22:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most deeply repressed? "You can't handle the truth". - Jack Nicholson

Gosh. Coulda fooled me. I was glad when ~~there was a cessation of hostilities~~ your conversation stopped. I'm even more glad to hear that I was wrong in assuming you guys were having a heated exchange; seems you were being downwight jovial. :)—enceph alon 12:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shakespearian kinda thing.... - Tεx τ urε 14:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But of course. I can see that.—enceph alon 14:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if either of you gets truly pissed in future "discussions", remember, don't let the bastard grind you down. Just take his lunch.—enceph alon 14:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And then take his beer! Un focused 14:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanics of Deletion Review[edit]

Hi. You were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU which looked to establish a Deletion Review process in place of VfU. There is now a discussion about how we might construct the mechanics of such a process. The current proposal suggests that debates be relisted on AfD if there is a majority of editors wanting to overturn the debate (usually on procedural grounds) and that the alternative result be implemented if it is supported by three-quarters of editors. Please call by Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal when you can to discuss. Thanks, and apologies for pinging your talk page again! -Splash^talk 02:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Systemwars.com[edit]

I have to say that I agree with you here. Tony had no business undeleting an article except by VfU. However, I don't currently have the time to enter into a long discussion about this, and would prefer to do no more than register my opposition to completely ignoring policy. I understand that Tony acted in good faith, but don't [[Sam Korn]] 16:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am divided on this one. The rule is, and long has been, that a previous deeltion is no bar to the creation of a different article on the asme subject. In the curreht state of things, I don't seem able to see both the previously deleted version and the verion that Tony wrote. He said that this was a completely independant creation, and i have no reason to think he lied. Since other said that it closely echoed the previous version, i presme that he worked from the same online sources as diod those who created the previosu version. In any case, the main reasson for the inital deletion was non-notability, and there seems at best limited reason to belive that this has increased substantiually since the previous deletion debate -- but particuwlrly in the case of soemthing like a web forum, whose notability can increase significantly in a fairly short time, I suppose that an editor must be allowed to repropose an article for discussion in light of alleged increase in notability (or usage and other such factors which go to indicate notability for such a forum) or in the light of allgedly new information abouth the subject generally. I don't approve of thsi action, and it smells of WP:POINT to me, but if Tony honestly thought he had new info on the subject, I don't see that he did anything wrong. DES ^(talk) 14:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree that it is WP:POINT and don't agree that Tony honestly thought he had new info. What Tony did wrong is once again try to circumvent a VfU in progress. He undeleted his own article (a conflict of interest that should be addressed) while it was being discussed on VfU with overwhelming support to keep deleted. This violates process and consensus. - Tεx τ urε 14:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- - I quite agree that a unilateral undeltion of a speedy-delted article while on VfU, particularly by the original author of the article is poor practice and a conflict of interest. If not strictly aganst policy, is is very poor form IMO. I was addressign mostly the issues of Tony's creation of a version of the articel, and the 2nd AfD debate. DES ^(talk) 15:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The second point may be more academic (and I believe not this case). Is a recreation speediable if it is innocently a recreation of deleted content? The answer according to policy is, yes, it is a recreation of content deleted under a valid vote and an innocent source does not change the fact. - Tεxτurε 14:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, a duplicte or effective duplicate of validly deleted content is speediable, no matter what the creator's intentions. But the creator cannot legitimately be criticised in such a case, merely adviased of the previous deletion, and invited to erite an article that will not have the same reasons for deletion, if this is possible. In the case where an article is deleted for non-notability and there is evidence of increased notability (or evidence of previous notability not considered in the original AfD) I think a new article that includes such evidence but is otherwise identical to the previous articel should not be considered as "substantially similar" and so subject to speedy deletion, becaue it is different on a key issue -- whether the subject is notable or not. Whither this article fit that case might be debated, but soem people so argued at the 2nd AfD, and the increased alexa score does indicate soem degree of increased notability, although whether it is enbough to cross the threshold is another matter DES ^(talk) 15:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok. I think we only differ on intent. I think in light of Tony's other actions (in this case and others) it is clearly WP:POINT but I respect to your view of WP:AGF. - Tεx τ urε 15:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding, I was on a brief wiki-break. I think the undeletion was against policy, and am concerned about it, but it appears to be fixed now. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VFU comment on Seduction Comm[edit]

Hey there Texture. I seem to have rubbed you the wrong way, which I'm sorry about. Although I think I understand the source of the problem, and I think we're about this || close to agreement, I may be wrong, and I want to listen and try to understand exactly where you believe I may have been mistaken. Thanks! enceph alon 20:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to you here but I'll give you the short version here... I didn't say what I thought I said. You're just supposed to... well... kinda know what I mean even though I don't actually explain myself... Got that? No? Well, me neither. Sorry for my confusion. No hard feelings? - 20:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Dude. How there possibly be hard feelings—you're too awesome for that. :) I think I understand what the problem might be. You want to protect the integrity of the AfD system from a closer who might exercise too much "discretion", and discount votes that he (alone) considers untenable, right? And perhaps the sound of "lesser weight for earlier votes" seems dangerously close to that, no?

I agree that can be a potential problem. However, when I say that votes may sometimes have to be given less weight, I mean for that bar to be quite high. That is to say, I am most comfortable with this when there is a factual problem at play, not an opinion difference. An example of a factual issue that may lead me to discount all prior keep votes, even from outstanding members of the community, is a copyvio. If I was closing a AfD where Jimbo Wales and Angela and Anthere and UIC had voted keep, but I found that the article was an outright, blatant copyvio, I will not keep it. If an AfD was started on a very good but extremely technical, obscure subject that 95% of the voters said to delete because they thought it was a hoax, and I find out it is real and can be sourced to excellent technical references, I will not delete it (for that reason anyway)—I will either relist or keep, depending on the circumstance and clarity of the situation. (Look at this AfD for an interesting example). But I would not agree with any discretionary decision running counter to the vote that did not have a clear, sensible, well-thought reason—a reason that must be clearly stated at the close (like how Splash does it). Kindest regards enceph alon 21:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC) NB. In the pseudowallerian degen AfD, the problem was spotted early so the votes were all "keep", but I'm using it as an example of a situation where, if it wasn't spotted, 95% of the vote could easily have been delete) enceph alon 21:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, y'had me... then y'didn't have me. I can agree to a high bar for weighing votes. To me that would need to be explicitely spelled out. Admins have recently gone rogue and I really feel that admins need to be administrators and not judges.

Your examples didn't have me. If Jimbo Wales and Angela and Anthere and UIC had voted keep and you deleted because it was a copyvio - you violated process. The proper result would have been keep and you tag the article as a copyvio and it goes on copyright problems page. No need to delete out of process when it can be verified on CP. (You might be wrong and all of them might know it is not a copyvio. Admins should not assume we know more.)

On the other, 95% of voters say its a hoax and you are convinced it is not. That sounds like your vote weighs a lot more than the 95%. (Again, you could be wrong.) If you plan to vote during closure you need to extend the voting period, vote yourself, and let another admin close it. (Just because you looked at closing it doesn't mean you have to.) The other option is that you relist it, vote, and let another admin close it. (Same thing.)

You examples don't pan out for me but I think I understand your reasoning. I think the above shows my concerns, however. I really think admins should be administrators and not judges. In this case it means if we feel we disagree with consensus we don't close it ourselves but rather (administratively) pass along our concerns and extend or relist. What'ya think? - Tεx τ urε 22:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say I would delete the copyvio on AfD, Texture. I said I will not keep it. (Yes, that was phrased that way intentionally :)). The regular procedure for copyvios apply. The example was intended to demonstrate an instance when "keep" (ie. as is) votes cannot be accepted with the usual weight they're given if later information turns up that shows they're not tenable.
In regards the hoax example, I am not saying my vote counts more than 95% of earlier voters—in the first place I think we should not close an AfD we vote on. I said that if 95% of editors vote to delete an article because they clearly believe it to be a hoax, but after they've voted and just before closure clear evidence turns up that it's real and not a hoax, I would not delete that article if I were a closer. I'd either relist or keep (depending on the circumstances). I'd recuse if there was some conflict of interest involved. (Question: imagine you were going to close that pseudowallerian AfD, imagine that Tony turned up with the evidence much later and was the last person to vote, and imagine there were 10 deletes before him. Would you have deleted the article (assume it was a decent paragraph, but had no listed references)? I most definitely wouldn't, and I think you wouldn't either. That's the point I'm trying to make.)
In any instance where this sort of thing happens, a very detailed statement must be made on the AfD, explaining reasons for doing something out of the ordinary. enceph alon 22:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we do agree. (mostly - at least on the imporant details) - Tεx τ urε 00:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Sexy Sluts thank you for your explanation[edit]

Thanks Texture,

Is there any way we can post our band without it seeming like "vanity" or "spam"?

-The Sexy Sluts

Not really under currrent guidelines and thinking unless your band grows to the point that an article can be developed independently based on your increased status. However, Wikipedia is a consensus driven community. If you want to become involved in the decisions made regarding music and band articles check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. As mentioned by Friday, you can also include whatever you'd like on your user page. - Tεx τ urε 19:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bands[edit]

You mentioned having a band who's not in Wikipedia. Mine isn't either (and I'm not suggesting it should be). But, I wonder you'd find User:Friday/Bands#List of Wikipedians... amusing. Friday (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Might get some support. - Tεx τ urε 19:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why was 'opwtn' deleted?[edit]

Post was factual and accurate. What reason was there to remove this?

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/OPWTN for information. Recreation of content deleted by vote can be marked as speedy delete and will be deleted. - Tεx τ urε 14:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your query on my talk page[edit]

...I thought it was pretty lame. But it looks like it was resolved correctly, last time i checked. Nandesuka 23:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for your opinion. I won't bother you again. - Tεx τ urε 21:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page[edit]

I don't remember why, but I was looking at your userpage. The blue dotted box overlaps the DYK text completely, so that the two sets of text are munged together. I'd {{sofixit}} if my HTML wasn't so very rusty. If it helps, I'm using Firefox 1.0.7 on WinXP Pro. -Splash^talk 19:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Didn't realize it broke. I threw in a {{clear}} and it seems fine now. - Tεx τ urε 18:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Glebova[edit]

Thank you for your contribution at Natalie Glebova.
Please keep it up!!! - P R A D E E P Somani (talk)
Feel free to send me e-mail.

10 October 2005

Inappropriate closure[edit]

(copied from Nichalp's talk page)

Do you feel it is appropriate for you to vote then close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balagangadhara? All but a single anon vote were to delete and you feel that you can vote then close as no consensus? How do you feel you can do this without obvious conflict of interest? - Tεx τ urε 14:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he declared a consensus to keep the article. I'd like to assume that this was a good faith procedural error, but it's difficult to believe that a highly experienced admin (and now bureaucrat) wouldn't know better. —Lifeisunfair 15:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize that his was the ONLY keep vote other than a single anonymous entry? His "consensus" was himself. That is inappropriate. - Tεx τ urε 16:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmmm. That closure does need explaining, particularly the choice to go with a keep rather than a no consensus. I guess for now we should wait for Nichalp to reply. I don't generally like admins closing divided debates in which they are clearly partisan. This could almost be a test case for deletion review, which I shall give another push to. However, with the website link removed and all that ghastly original research (it's far more than an overview of a book, which might be ok to an extent) and obvious publicity removed, I'd expect the article to make it alive through another AfD since he is director of a research centre at a Uni and has published a book. Depending on Nichalp's response, I suppose there would be nothing at all wrong with a rapid renomination in this case, given the manner of the closure. -Splash^talk 16:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent catch, Texture. Certainly needs explaining, as Splash suggests. I would like to believe this was a simple error, perhaps caused by working too quickly or having his mind elsewhere and not realizing what he was doing. That's sometimes the explanation for odd closes like this.[2] One another note, this

...deletion review, which I shall give another push to.

sounds like a great idea. I think we should move into the final stages, Splash. enceph alon 17:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VFD[edit]

Hi Texture: Assume good faith. I was surprised to see the tone of your post on my page, which struck me as rather aggressive. Perhaps you could be a little more polite in the future?

Well, AFD is not my comfort zone, and well, that day I may have had on off day since I had a really busy week. I stand by what I have done, in retrospective, as you rightly pointed out however, it was "conflict of interest" on my part. I apologise for this error.

My actions on that day were as follows. The article was nominated on 28 September. As per the AFD convention, the a desision on deleting or preserving the article usually takes place after five days. I took the decision on 8 October, that's 10 days after it was nominated by you and double the normal process time. Well, IP votes are allowed, there's nothing barring them from voting in the process if made in good faith, and I believe it was made in good faith. I did do a google search on him and it threw up quite a lot of results. 3:2 is not really a decisive vote count after 10 days, so I had to give the article the benefit of the doubt, to clear the backlog.

To conclude this post, there was nothing wrong in my judgement, I stand by what I have done, but me voting, and also concluding the AFD process was perhaps a "conflict of interest", for which I am ready to apologise. You are most welcome to seek another admin's opinion, but I won't follow up on this. Thank you and regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sad that you did not Assume good faith in my action. I did not change your closing. I did not undo it and extend the voting period. I did not delete the article. I did not renominate the article for deletion. I did not place the decision on VfU (in the spirit of Deletion Review). I did not take any action against you on any of the many wikipedia-space pages where this decision, your action, or the situation in general could be discussed.

What I did do was place a note on your talk page. I found this to be the least agressive, most accomodating, and most appropriate place to voice my concern at your action. I apologize if you didn't like how I worded the note. I cannot find a less offensive or more accomodating place to make my concern known to you. Do you have a suggestion?

Regarding your judgement - I would not have questioned your decision to give weight to the anon had you not voted minutes before closing the AfD. You say that AfD is not your comfort zone. Why, then, did you choose to vote and then close this AfD that was clearly weighted to "delete"? In my opinion, it looks to an observer that you saved a dying article in every way you could. Had you voted and allowed another admin to close with no consensus to delete I would not question it. Had you closed without voting with no consensus to delete I would also have deferred to your discretion. In this case you took it off the block minutes after voting. I took that concern to your talk page and here we are.

One last thing. Please reread my original comment without the tone you believe it has. You have answered my question (at the end of your reply) and I am satisfied in your response that you will consider this possible conflict in the future. - Tεx τ urε 20:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did assume good faith on your part. I did not criticise your actions in anyway except for the tone on my talk, which could be more diplomatically put. I also thank you for the good actions on your part.

As for the post:Do you feel it is appropriate for you to vote then close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balagangadhara? All but a single anon vote were to delete and you feel that you can vote then close as no consensus? How do you feel you can do this without obvious conflict of interest? could it not be reworded to Hi, I noticed that you voted to keep the article on Balagangadhara, and closed the nomination almost immediately. Considering that ann anon's vote, and your last minute vote were the only ones to keep, so would it not be a "conflict of interest" if the same person voted and closed it immediately? Awaiting your response. Regards, Texture. In the second reply "ONLY" is in allcaps, 'shouting' in other words. Unfortunately, I won't be a daily contibutor to wp anymore, so there's less of a chance of me erring in the future. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I'll keep that in mind and try to phrase things better. - Tεx τ urε 14:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, just remember we all make mistakes. Owning up to an error on one's part is a hard thing to do for most people, but that resolves issues much faster and makes friends. :) I realise that I've messed up the grammar above, but I guess you've got the gist of what I had to say. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neleh[edit]

Saw your left shoe joke, which has become quite the archetype for the perenial question—what is notability? Ever since I took an interest in behind-the-scenes policy-wonking on WP, and especially since I started thinking about what this Project might achieve, it has seemed to me that the fundamental, fate-settling question before us is: what are we going to let in and what are we going to (try and) keep out? In a world where information is not yet cheap, and there is much garbage among the valuable, the free-for-all approach advocated by many uber-"inclusionists" is unhealthy. At the same time, the way "notability" is used by many folk seems less than thoughtful. Pondering a way out has led me to believe that a robust interpretation of WP:V is the brightest torch we have. The route is clear for articles; the Archilles heel is the idea of a stub. Is it possible to write a Theory of Everything for WP? Yeah. In time. enceph alon 20:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would have voted to keep Neleh but I will probably nominate Jonathan Libby and Wanda Shirk for deletion. They are the equivalent of throwing trash inside blocks when building a foundation. They don't hurt anything. They might insulate the house if you have enough trash in there (likely not). Mostly they just don't do anything. It'd be worse if you had to see the filler trash when looking for something inside the house. (Something I find cluttering searches in my den.) These could be merged into another article. (Is there one on useless reality show extras?) Oh, and there is a Theory of Everything. Sadly, I still believe in the theory of nothing and its result. - Tεx τ urε 21:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're very, very bad. It's taken me ages to stop laughing, time I could have spent doing other things! That ought to be archived someplace. -Splash^talk 21:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Spargo[edit]

Hi. I restored John Spargo. I'm curious why you thought it was speedy delete material. --RoySmith 21:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. The original deleted article had the text "John Spargo was a muckraker." and the recreated version seemed to be making a similar personal attack (WP:CSD A6). Rereading it I can see that it was likely not (at least in its current form.) - Tεx τ urε 21:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CVU[edit]

I noticed you aren't in Category:Counter Vandalism Unit Member/wikipedia/en and wanted to let you now that we'd appreciate you adding yourself! Also, consider using one of the identification templates: {{User:Cool Cat/CVU1-1}} or {{User:Cool Cat/CVU2-1}}

Thanks for your involvement with CVU! -- Essjay · Talk 00:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yr welcome[edit]

Re : Yr msg, no probs. I do actually have an account, but had forgotten to log in!

Regards, Gibraltarian

deleting links[edit]

Not really sure why The War in Context was deleted from the Iraq page external links. This is neither a commercial site nor a private site. It's used by lots of journalists covering the war in Iraq - Tony Karon at Time, Christopher Dickey at Newsweek and Hassan Fatah at The New York Times, just to name a few.

The War in Context[edit]

Yes, this is my site. It's on a subject that I've been covering in depth for over three years and as well as adding articles I do provide commentary. Do a search on Ask.com with the query - Iraq war - http://web.ask.com/web?q=iraq+war&qsrc=0&o=0 and you'll see that The War in Context comes up as result #4 out of 15,950,000. With the same query run in Google's larger index it comes up 51 out of 120,000,000.

Christopher Dickey, Paris Bureau Chief and Middle East Regional Editor for Newsweek Magazine, writes: "The War in Context tracks breaking news and adds thoughtful perspective," http://christopherdickey.blogspot.com/2005/10/terror-crying-wolf-playing-politics.html while Tony Karon, senior editor at TIME.com, says that my site "provides the best annotated clipping service of the mainstream media for all things war, terror and Mideast related." http://tonykaron.com/2005/08/15/war-in-context/

Wikipedia is not for advertising your own web site. If your site gains notability it will be added at an appropariate place in the future by a third party. Adding links to your own site in article is considered a vanity edit and will be removed. - Tεx τ urε 19:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Texture wrote: Wikipedia is not for advertising your own web site. If your site gains notability it will be added at an appropariate place in the future by a third party. Adding links to your own site in article is considered a vanity edit and will be removed.

The vanity guidelines describe vanity information as "any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author." The War in Context has extracts from 13,000 articles relating to the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism, the Middle East conflict and the Bush administration's involvement in these issues. There is virtually nothing on the site about me. The idea that sites will be added "at an appropariate [sic] place in the future" sounds good in principle, yet it was not until today that the Wikipedia Iraq page had a link added (by me) to Informed Comment http://www.juancole.com . Professor Juan Cole is one of the most widely quoted experts on Iraq in the United States. He has appeared many times on the PBS Newshour and is frequently quoted in all the major newspapers when expert opinion is sought on Iraq. But (until today) anyone trying to better understand what's happening in Iraq would not have been able to find a link to Informed Comment from Wikipedia's Iraq page. Wikipedia will not develop as a useful repository of expert knowledge if it is overzealously policed.

We are talking about the notability of your website and your reason for adding it to many articles. Not its content. You are advertising your website and it will be removed. - Tεx τ urε 20:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC[edit]

Hi there! I have openend an RFC on Tony Sidaway's frequent incivility and poor response to criticism. I would appreciate your opinion on the matter. If I understand correctly from his talk page, you have recently tried to discuss this very issue with him, and it didn't really resolve anything. I hope that an RFC may be more fruitful. Yours, R adiant _>|< 12:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Periodic table of the elements[edit]

Dear Texture,

I'm sorry to see that you reverted my addition to the English Wikipedia's article "Periodic table of the chemical elements". It wasn't my intention to advert any kind of commercial product: in fact, if you pay close attention to my webpage, it's FREEWARE. In other words, you may distribute it and do whatever you wish with it, so I thought it was worth a link in your page. Therefore, I don't considere that as "advertising a product", but an information source as any other page/link.

Sorry again if I misunderstood Wikipedia's policies.

Regards,

Luis

hey texture[edit]

i am just posting here to ask premission to use your template for your talk page... i like it lots but i thought i would ask you 1st before i used it just in case you do not want me to use it. Simsy 19:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean?[edit]

You write on my RfC: "I have suggested with Tony that he propose new policy changes to CSD to allow the things he wants to delete outside of policy. He has dismissed this idea and prefers to delete because he can and thinks his opinion is sufficient to override policy."

I have no idea what you mean here. Can you recall when you asked me to do this, and in what context? --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 22:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. You felt that deleting worthless advertisements should be at the Admin's discretion (without a rule or policy allowing it) and I suggested that you propose a change to CSD to allow this as a speedy deletion. [3] You did not want it added as an undisputed rule in CSD since you thought some were useful and could be cleaned up. I suggested that the new rule would not mandate deletion but leaves it at the discretion of the admin. [4] (You felt this was taunting. The style was one of asking questions and moving to the next question without awaiting answers.) When you refused this idea [5] I stated that you didn't want it as a rule but wanted to do what you felt should be done and not have to adhere to a policy. [6] You responded "that discretion, by its nature, cannot be legislated". [7] (Hopefully all my cut-and-pasting came out right.) - Tεx τ urε 22:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change username[edit]

Texture:

Could you help me. I would like to either change my username or keep my username but have a slightly different name pop up when I do the 4 ~ after posting. I noticed that your username is changed, could you help me? Thanks.Gator1 18:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Go to your preferences (top of the page or [8]) and change your nickname. Mine is:

Tεx]][[User Talk:Texture|τ]][[User:Texture|urε

Basic HTML rules apply. - Tεx τ urε 19:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sidaway[edit]

He has said he won't even read the RfC anymore. Where do you intend to proceed? The RfC has convinced me that he is being irresponsible. TheChief (PowWow) 20:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He said that to the first RfC. (I invite you to read it.) He is extremely active in this second RfC. To the point that he is signing in agreement or responding against each and every opinion given on the second RfC. Check out the second RfC talk page for even more. As to what to do next? All he's doing is making himself look worse with each response that totally disregards any criticism and he claims huge acceptance of his actions despite all that you see against him. - Tεx τ urε 20:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of Tony Sidaway's Misconduct[edit]

I am currently amassing evidence of the misconduct demonstrated by User:Tony Sidaway and would appreciate your help in the matter. If you would please post any contributions you may have to User:TheChief/Evidence I would appreciate it very much. TheChief (PowWow) 23:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TheChief[edit]

You should probably post your evidence regarding TheChief not being Agriculture on User talk:David Gerard and WP:AN/I, if you feel strongly about it.--Scimitar ^parley 21:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did add it to WP:AN/I. I wouldn't say I feel strongly about it. I don't have access to IP information and could not make any conclusions. I just found David's statement to be unlikely and less so after finding out that the IPs are not identical. (Tony recently admonished me for claiming two users were the same for the ISPs being an hour apart.) - Tεx τ urε 21:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you Texture, without your undying sense of justice and your personal motivation which drove you to look deeper into my cause, the cause of a total stranger, I might never have seen the justice I required. Your efforts on my behalf are appreciated far greater than words could possibly express. Consider me to be forever in your debt. If you have need of anything which I can provide be it time, assistance, proofreading (in this regard I will admit to being generally horrible, unfortunately), or what have you, simply ask and I will do my best.

I have answered your query on my talk page. I encourage you and others to ask more questions, offer comments, or otherwise continue the dialog with me about what has happened. Discussion certainly fixes many things and I am always open for discussion on any topic. TheChief (PowWow) 16:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Rv[edit]

Thanks for the Rv of my talk page. That was a weird random vandalism. «»Who ?¿?^meta 21:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User test - gotta be. - Tεx τ urε 21:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nailing down those slippery terms[edit]

Hi, Texture. Thanks for engaging Joshua and me at talk:terms used in the creation-evolution debate. This discussion seems fruitful.

Please see my idea on a new page. I will be busy today with meetings, so I won't be on the wiki again for an endless eternity, i.e. 12 whole hours! Uncle Ed 12:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you =[edit]

For moving them to the right namespace :)

Peace! --Striver 00:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you think you are, "Catboy" destroyer?[edit]

Yes, you! I was just logging on to update my page, and I find it deleted! I hope you have an explanation, because right now I am severely angry at you. Well? Explain yourself, Texture!

"Coming soon" is not an article. I am one of three admins that deleted Catboy because there was no content. Please consider performing any future tests in the sandbox. Thanks. - Tεx τ urε 14:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noahide Laws in Category:Jewish Christian topics ?[edit]

There is a dispute over whether Noahide Laws should be included in this category, anyone with an opinion is asked to express it here: Talk:Noahide_Laws#Jewish_Christian_topics

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for self reverting yourself on User_talk:198.169.140.30. I appreciate you taking the time while I worked with a new editor that clearly had good intentions, just didn't know exactly how to go about it. Wikibofh 01:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Hillary[edit]

I noticed that you reverted Edmund Hillary.

In particular you reverted/remove: Prominent People - Edmund Hillary

I am guessing, but is it because this URL contains google adds? And the contributor is anonymous. And information source reference are not include (maybe it is original research)?

Otherwise the web page refered to looks reasonable.

Sumburgh 00:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In response to your note on my talk page, the user who added the external link to Edmund Hillary also added spam links from the same web site to a dozen other unrelated articles. (see Anne Frank and Martin Luther King, Jr. history for examples of the same web site.) - Tεx τ urε 15:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... ThanX for the answer. To be honest these links are of only fleeting interest to me. But I checked the "spam" on Anne Frank and Martin Luther King, Jr. that you mentioned. My conclusion is that it doesn't exactly look like spam. BUT they do have google adds on them, hence are commercial and not GPL sites. Maybe overtly spam. (Did a couple of google search on phrases, and it only got 1 (the same) hit.

Also they are not authoritive sites or link. eg Anne Frank Society Home page etc... Which makes me wonder where the information on them was glossed from, even question its accuracy.

But they are not true 100% spam. Is there an agreed wiki definition as to how "overt" the suspect spam needs to be before it gets reverted? If so thanx for spotting the spam... and I will do the same, otherwise I remain puzzled and ponder is this is a new way to get googles hits that a wiki policy should address...

Sorry to be a trouble.

Sumburgh 18:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Blog[edit]

{{Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Tεxτurε 17:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

i don't understand. all i posted were contents from External Links that ARE relevant to the topics.. not quite sure why they were removed right after i posted. Please enlighten. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commonsense (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to advertise websites or blogs. Please consider other places for such advertising. - Tεx τ urε 18:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi again. there is nothing about advertising the blogs or sites. i see sites with good and relevant contents regarding to the topic (in this case, all about Chinese Astrology), links which are better and detailed than the other links on the Wiki sites itself, so i added them under External Links. If these better links can't be added, then what are we supposed to contribute to =External Links= ?? Please enlighten further. Thanks.

one example here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortune-telling there existed a link Chinese names and fortune-telling -->> http://jadebeauty.blogspot.com/ WHICH, if you can read chinese, there is no doubt this blog has NOTHING to do with fortune-telling.

i added Chinese Astrology - Zi Wei Dou Shu -->> http://chinese-astrology.blogspot.com/2005/07/zi-wei-dou-shu-what-is-it.html WHICH is one of the MAJOR forms of fortune-telling in chinese history, but because such detailed sites in english are rare and few even if you google it, i think it is a gem for un-chinese educated folks.

and yet mine got edited out.

Thanks for pointing it out. The blog has been removed from the links on Fortune-telling - Tεx τ urε 18:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For your "major" form of fortune-telling, do you have a source that is not simply a blog but a respectable source? (I assume that something so major would exist in many places on the web and not just in a single user's blog.) If so, it should be included. It may take more time and research but a blog entry is not considered a respectable source. - Tεx τ urε 18:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

honestly, details of this arm of fortune-telling Zi Wei Dou Shu 紫微斗數 (there is something about it here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_astrology) is never free of charge. a proper course requires one to pay from hundreds to thousands of dollars (depending on which country) to learn the very basics from Masters. and once learnt, the art is guarded jealously because it is a great money-spinner in chinese culture (though getting more popular in the West), similar to Fengshui.

some sites that offer this course are http://www.amfengshui.com/cldesc/as201.htm and http://www.astro-fengshui.com/courses/ziwei.html (interestingly, an american and canadian site)

most of the sites from the search engines are merely informative, but do not teach readers the proper steps to go about it. they do give examples and quote their experiences, but they do not teach readers how to do it. even chinese books available in the market do give you lots of charts and examples but do not explain the rationale behind the charts. i have since given up buying such books. to Zi Wei newbies like us, this site is a gem.

anyway, i had only wanted to share. thanks for taking the time to read this. =)) ciao.

How do you edit your signature?[edit]

How do you edit your signature, as to give it colors, like you do, Texture? -JedOs 09:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

Nevermind, I got it to work. -- JedOs

19:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's allright. I should have figured it was the nickname option own my own LOL. JedOs

18:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Berg Conspiracy Theories revisited[edit]

Greetings Texture; Sorry our first correspondence has to be of this nature. Re: Nick Berg Conspiracy Theories article: One can't help but notice that there are many unverifiable and not necessarily factual predicates that outline no specific conspiracy. A conspiracy in this particular case should revolve around why Berg was murdered and why there would be need to fake a video.

True, there is plenty of purported evidence purveyed by people proud of their video forensics prowess. Great, but that alone only supports a theory which one would assume would be included in an article called Nick Berg Conspiracy Theories.

Perhaps the page could be renamed: Nick Berg Video, fact or fiction!

According to my list of unabashedly shameless emails I received while handling the inbox for the Nick Berg Memorial website, the main conspiracy theory was:

Nick was murdered to take the political heat off the White House for the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Oh wait, was that a theory? Didn't the murderer say it was in retribution for the scandal?

Of course, the real conspiracy theory diverged from there into whether or not he was actually killed by al-Zarqawi, Americans, or American paid executioners made to look like al-Zarqawi.

Another minor theory was that Nick was killed to incite hate against Muslims, or encourage Israel to become more involved in the war, thereby escalating the conflict as an all out battle of religions.

There is the theory proposed by cynics with sneering dispositions to disbelieve anything in the media that Nick Berg was not murdered at all. I suppose analysis of the video would go under this category.

There are the theories that Nick was a spy for Israel – but that is not developed in this article other than to say he visited there on his way east. Of course, I could elaborate on the silliness for considering that blip as supporting evidence for a conspiracy, but the article disposed of most theories without even mentioning them.

It seems that the majority of the article is to discredit the video. This is done on plenty of independent conspiracy sites. I believe the article should be about Nick Berg Conspiracy Theories, or not exist at all. Talk:Nick_Berg_conspiracy_theories Hobga 19:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tax avoidance - no such word[edit]

Thanks, cursor problems led to me screwing that up editing elsewhere in the article. Paul Beardsell 21:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Franchise spammer[edit]

I guess that would have been pretty funny, but you can't expect people like that to act at all rationally anyway. Quick related question: I know there's a URL blacklist built into the MediaWiki software. Do you know if this is admin-accessible so that I can add this "thefranchisemall" URL to it? --Bob Mellish 17:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you find out please let me know the answer. Sorry I couldn't help. - Tεx τ urε 17:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan external links[edit]

Hi there. I'm wondering what your thinking was about the external links on Jordan. The original link that you reverted back to at first seems at a glance probably better and certainly less commercial. Did you prefer the second one or did you just feel that a rollback hadnt been called for? And do we really need either or could we have both, or what? Palmiro | Talk 22:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted for fear of advertising a user's photo blog. Instead, as you pointed out, I found that both were similar in substance. That being the case I could not support my argument that the second link was vandalism or advertising so I undid my involvement. I can see an argument both ways so if you would like to remove both links do so or bring it up on the talk page. - Tεx τ urε 22:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that certainly makes sense. I will mull the question over and probably do nothing. Palmiro | Talk 22:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Texture[edit]

I'm the person editing the Caffeinism topic, after starting it last summer. The CaffeineWeb.com site I'd like to link to, which you and (I think) others have removed, isn't for profit. I'm only trying to to get the word out to people who may be suffering from caffeinism, which is about as insidious an illness as can be imagined.

I built the site last year while recovering from caffeine poisoning myself. Within 18 months of starting to drink coffee for the first time (only 2-3 cups a day), I went from excellent health to full-blown psychosis and dementia. My family and friends thought I had a brain tumor or a nervous breakdown, but I was almost entirely oblivious to the dramatic changes in my personality and behavior. Toward the end I was walking around like a zombie, with masked facies and blunted affect, like a Parkinson's victim. I was 33 and enjoying life to the fullest when this happened.

After learning the symptoms I withdrew from coffee. My clarity started to return immediately. Within days I was "surfacing" from my disoriented state, and beginning to realize how far gone I'd been. A horrifying experience, but fortunately a relatively short-lived one.

Others are not as lucky. It's virtually impossible to distinguish caffeinism from mental illness as long as the drug is in the system. Even worse, caffeinism blinds the victim to its symptoms. For this reason it's not as important for victims to be informed as their loved ones, who can observe them objectively.

Since building the site (rather crudely I admit), I've received dozens of e-mails from caffeinism sufferers and their friends and relatives. Of course some of them are probably do have an organic mental illness, but I can't be the judge of that. All I can do is urge them to inform their doctor of the symptoms, so a professional can decide.

A few people have e-mailed me to say, apparently quite reasonably, "Please, caffeine doesn't do this to the average person." Before it happened to me I would have said the same thing. Even the word "caffeinism" sounds funny. But 87% of the U.S. population ingests caffeine on a daily basis. And 25% of the population is diagnosed with one of the mental disorders caffeinism mimics. Given the flood of reports by psychiatrists and toxicologists detailing caffeine's darker side, it's a deadly presumption to assume there's no overlap.

I hope you'll let my site stay linked on Wikipedia. Please feel free to write me if you like, at Brian@CaffeineWeb.com.

Thank you,

Brian Matthews

The fact that you are promoting your own web site is the very reason it should not be included. Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle. You created the article along with a link to your site. If your cite is notable it will be created by someone else. (Bill Gates did not create the article on Microsoft.) As a rule, I oppose any website added by the website owner. (My web site is not on Wikipedia. My band is not on Wikipedia. I am not on Wikipedia.)

My mother has Parkinson's so I don't think comparing it to "caffeinism" is appropriate. I have suffered caffeinne withdrawal after growing up to tea at three meals a day and my own heart condition has prompted doctors to demand I stop all caffeinne. (I have reduced it severely.) I have my doubts about the veracity of the article itself since it was created by someone trying to promote their website (in my view) but that isn't sufficient for me to nominate it for deletion. However, it is inappropriate to promote yourself or your website on Wikipedia. (Consider creating a user account and you can promote your site on your own user page.) - Tεx τ urε 22:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Tεxτurε 17:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC) Thank you for your note.

"The fact that you are promoting your own web site is the very reason it should not be included. Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle. You created the article along with a link to your site. If your cite is notable it will be created by someone else. (Bill Gates did not create the article on Microsoft.) (My web site is not on Wikipedia. My band is not on Wikipedia. I am not on Wikipedia.)"

B: I think you have to distinguish the letter of the law from the spirit of the law, and make occasional exceptions to that rule. I don't understand how linking one's own relevant, nonprofit site constitutes "promoting" it. I created the article and added my site link at the urging of two of the experts whose studies are quoted on my site, as well as several family members and friends, and about a dozen recovered caffeinism victims. If you like I'll ask one of them to register as a Wikipedia editor and add the link. Honestly, there's a difference between promoting knowledge and promoting a rock band. If there were another site with the same information, I'd gladly link to it instead. In fact I tried to add more references to sites other than mine (including PubMed and eMedicine), and they too were deleted at one point.

"My mother has Parkinson's so I don't think comparing it to "caffeinism" is appropriate."

B: You haven't experienced the illness at its worst, or you would see the rightness of the comparison. And again, it was a neurologist who first made the Parkinson's comparison--not something I came up with for dramatic effect. In my final month I presented with both masked facies (the immobilization of facial muscles) and blunted affect (flatness of emotional response). Not only was I unable to recall the names and phone numbers of the people closest to me (on two or three occasions), I was incapable of making my way from my job in midtown Manhattan to my apartment downtown without asking strangers for help (often in tears). I'd spent most of my 20s traveling everywhere from Alaska to Africa, and hadn't missed a day of work in 6 years, so it's not like I was normally disoriented.

"I have suffered caffeinne withdrawal after growing up to tea at three meals a day and my own heart condition has prompted doctors to demand I stop all caffeinne. (I have reduced it severely.) I have my doubts about the veracity of the article itself since it was created by someone trying to promote their website (in my view) but that isn't sufficient for me to nominate it for deletion. However, it is inappropriate to promote yourself or your website on Wikipedia. (Consider creating a user account and you can promote your site on your own user page.) - Tεxτurε 22:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

One more thing. You have added a lot of content to the article that has made it better. Please don't take my aversion to advertising your site as an opposition to your edits. You've done good work. - Tεxτurε 22:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)"

B: Thanks, and good luck kicking the habit! I will try to go to a higher authority on this though. I hope you won't be offended :)

Brian

Not at all. I'm curious what authority you plan to appeal to, though. - Tεx τ urε 23:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! I assumed there was some arbiter somewhere on Wikipedia? But I don't expect you to tell me who...LOL

Remember me?[edit]

Hey, Texture. Remember when I was WikiFan04 and I created that article called "So Gut Wie Es Erhalt"? And I said I would delete it, but I wasn't an administrator?

Well, I'm an administrator now! I became one today! :-D

Have a good day. WikiFanatic 05:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

external link on Narnia[edit]

I'm adding back the link to http://narniaconfidential.com/ on the Narnia article. It's a reasonable resource for people who want more info. I'll rework the text for the link so that it is less like an ad. (I didn't originally add the link, and I have nothing to do with that site) Lsommerer 18:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Article subject to vandalism[edit]

I understand your expressed concerns about this template, but I think it is needed for specific articles, such as George W. Bush, that receive both heavy traffic and very high levels of vandalism. While it may impair the article to some extent, it doesn't do so to the extent that a page full of penises would - and you and I both know that that is not at all an uncommon occurrence on this and several other popular articles. We need a harsh warning that will deter vandals. Crotalus horridus 13:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

168.8.208.3[edit]

Given final warning, today and vandalised again. I'm not going to issue another warning, but I'm, unfortunately, not an admin, so would you mind taking care of this guy? Thanks.Gator (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remote picture galleries[edit]

Can't I add links to remote picture galleries which are free and cover whole available model range of a given make (automotive)? Those pictures can not be posted directly due to large quantity/size of the images. Furthermore I found many less relevant picture gallery links listed.

Adding the same website link to 80 article is spam - Tεx τ urε 19:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You could have at least taken the time to look at those sites. All links were from the same domain, but each consisted of 100s of pictures of a given make – all clearly organized by year and model. The site I was linking to is the largest archive of hires car pictures on the web today, so I felt it qualifies as a good resource. No hard feelings – just trying to understand the rules.

I did look at the sites. Try the last five you added: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] - all the same web site. How about the first five you added: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] - all the same site. Please do not use Wikipedia to advertise your website. (net car show) - Tεx τ urε 20:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Volvo -> 30 models' galleries

Audi -> 70 models' galleries

BMW -> 147 models' galleries (literally all to date)

It's like saying that all the links to yahoo in wiki are to the same page.

I provided free, complete, relevant resource and you're saying that it's spam and "SuperCarNews.com High Resolution Ferrari Images" @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari is OK...

Spam is spam. If you chose to go to page 2 instead of page 1 you are still trying to advertise a single site. - Tεx τ urε 20:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anon on Tutorial pages[edit]

The guidance for the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism page is only list if "The vandal vandalized recently after the last warning". The last warning when I responded (and there are no warnings after) was prior to it being listed. The vandal had already stopped before you blocked him and before he was even listed. - Tεx τ urε 19:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The last warning was 17:35 [19]; the user vandalised 17:39: [20]. Thue | talk 20:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection[edit]

I saw you just reverted vandalism on George W. Bush, and wondered what you thought about the proposals to curb what's going on there. If you have time, check out Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy, and weigh in (there's something of a large discussion page, so be prepared. For a quick run-through of what's been said and done, see #rehashing) Hope to see you there. -Mys e kurity^{(have you seen this?)} 02:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already in the straw poll under support - Tεx τ urε 15:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whups, sorry about that. I didn't see that you had recieved a note on your talk page, so I assumed you were blissfully unaware. Thanks for supporting, and {{Spread the word!}} ({{User Semi}} -Mys e kurity^{(have you seen this?)} 05:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Henriette's Herbal[edit]

You do realize that the Henriette's Herbal pages are links to a free copy of King's American Dispensatory, published 1898 and in the public domain, right? The information is pretty important, relating to traditional understanding of herbs, and that's where the online copy is. Stan 17:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - Tεx τ urε 17:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BuddhaChat[edit]

Buddhachat.org isn't a commercial or my own private website. It's a non-profit website. If e-sangha and bswa.org is allowed on wikipedia than there is no reason why buddhachat.org shouldn't be. Buddhachat.org is just a site trying to help people learn about Buddhism.

You spammed a dozen articles. Wikipedia is not a link directory nor is it the appropriate place to advertise your non-profit website. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise regardless of your tax status. - Tεx τ urε 15:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don’t run or own Buddhachat.org, but I know Buddhachat is only trying to help fellow Buddhist learn about Buddhism, hence the link on the Buddhism pages. I did not spam the articles; spam means to send unsolicited e-mail to. Or to send (a message) indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups. This is a blatant sign of discrimination. With allowing other links to forums on the articles. I will be taking this up with Jimbo Wales and or the Arbitration Committee. Thank you for your time.

Good luck with that. - Tεx τ urε 17:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA[edit]

As a respected and experienced member of the community and as someone who has worked with me in the past, I think your opinion re: my RFA (no matter what it might be) would be appreciated by everyone involved, including myself. Thanks.Gator (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:204.10.222.251[edit]

I replied on my talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I replied again. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamist terrorism[edit]

While the anonymous contributor is being anything but gracious about his suggested edits, and while the wording is clearly highly non-neutral, that does not mean you should revert his changes on sight. Reserve this for vandalism. I've tried to encourage the anon to talk it out. JRM · Talk 20:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JRM, The anon vandal adding biased commentary to Islamic terrorism is not performing ordinary editing but is pushing an agenda. I consider this to be vandalism in the absense of any other edits and in conjunction with his personal attacks on myself and others. I have reverted him three times and will take no further action on the article today. He has refused all discussion and I don't expect that to change. - Tεx τ urε 21:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is banned user:enviroknot. He has done this before using this same IP and was blocked on that same article. He has done this many times this year and his edits should be reverted per arbCom committee ruling. He is back, now using different IP 129.7.35.102 (talk · contribs) to evade block. See [21]. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also see this [22] and what he did the last time he evaded block a few weeks ago. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamist terrorism editor[edit]

I've blocked him for 24 hours for personal attacks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Credit card article[edit]

Hi,

Posted this in the credit card article Talk section, but thought I'd go to you directly as you seem to watching over that article. I'm a little new to this, although I get the concept, but maybe you can clarify for me.

I saw that an external link was made to indexcreditcards.com/creditcardlinks.html on the credit card article & you removed it. I thought the list was useful, but you considered it as advertising/spamming. I added it back on, you removed it, & now I've left it off the page but am wondering why that page wouldn't qualify as a directory, which wikipedia says is OK, at least "may be" OK. It'a long list and I can't imagine all the cards on the list are advertising (I could be wrong but there's some pretty obscure things on there).

The rest of the site obviously has commercial intentions, but that particular page seems OK. Does wikipedia automatically say no to any dot com that has profit motive, even if there is a useful resource on the site, or do you just see that particular page as not useful?

Since you're an administrator & I'm not, it make no sense for me to go back and forth on that link with you if you're determined that it's bad (and I'm not inclined to do that anyway as my time could be spent in better ways, yet I can't help but be a bit miffed when my edits get thrown out, but I suppose that's true of many wikipedians, eh?). I would like a better understanding of your reasoning, though, as it would be helpful when editing other articles.

Thanks.

Wikipedia is not a "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories." If you can gain support from other users then it can be included. I am one of many who are following wikipedia policies to remove commercial spam and avoid dozens of links just like that one. I saw your entry on the talk page but no one has responded in support. - Tεx τ urε 22:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spam blacklist[edit]

A little while ago we were talking about WP's spam blacklist for external URLs. I eventually found it over here, just FYI. --Bob Mellish 17:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block..[edit]

How did you block that user? Can only admins block? --Lacatosias 16:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only admins can block. What user are you referring to? (I haven't blocked a user in a while.) - Tεx τ urε 22:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

spam?[edit]

Do these edits look like web-spam to you? Joyous | Talk 23:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very much so. I have removed the remaining advert and added {{spam}} to the user's talk page. - Tεx τ urε 15:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was torn between "he's trying to add pictures" and "yeah, but they all link back to the site." I appreciate the second opinion. Joyous | Talk 15:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

So, seeing as there there are so many admins, the qualification can not be that high. So what are they exactly? And, also, why are there so many to begin with? I am betting that maybe one-hundered or less could do the job just as well. Damien Vryce 16:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An admin in Wikipedia is really just another name for "trusted user" in my book. You have the capability to protect pages, undelete pages, block users, etc. You're not God or anything close to a computer god in Wikipedia. Anything you do that's stupid is undone and you get penalized. Qualifications are really that of "trusted user" - Are you going to use the new capabilities correctly and for the good of all? Are you good at cooperating and mediating when asked to? Do you have a driving interest to undo the messes and vandalisms as they come? Do you play well with others? etc. - Tεx τ urε 18:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katelyn Faber[edit]

Could you weigh in at the bottom of the Talk Page for Katelyn Faber regarding the inclusion of an image of her? User:Tufflaw, who unsuccessfully tried to have the entire article deleted back in December 2005 insists on censoring/deleting it for extremely specious reasons, and I've been asked to gather a consensus. Thanks. Nightscream 18:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can see it at: http://img486.imageshack.us/img486/7051/globecover5ty.jpg. Thank you for the support, but in reading some of the arguments on the Faber talk page, I agreed with them that the accompanying cover text is not appropriate. I tried lobbying for a cropped version of the photo that only shows her head, but I was then told that that would not fall under Fair Use regarding use of magazine covers, though the person who told me this did not specify why, saying that the intricacies of Fair Use are complicated. (Me, I don't understand why a cropped version showing just her head would be a problem, since the original pic obviously came from someone else's collection, and not the Globe itself, which merely ran the photo.) Nightscream 03:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that cropping out all but the head changes the use of the original photo. The copyright holder intended that their magazine name and captions be included in all reproduction. To do otherwise violates their rights and changes the use to something called a "derivative work". - Tεx τ urε 16:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User 24.147.105.217[edit]

I notice in the block log for 24.147.105.217 that you blocked him in December 2005. He/she is up to no good once again, engaging in numerous vandalous edit. I wanted to bring it to your attention ASAP. Assawyer 14:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write of Terrorism[edit]

Someone is attempting a massive POV re-write of Terrorism; would you mind taking a look? Much appreciated. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I've been away getting married and honeymooned. Wikipedia got downgraded... :) - Tεx τ urε 20:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of links[edit]

Why don't you remove the PT association links added by me and the chrononogical changes and extra content added by me on the Physical Therapy page?

Arun

Your web site that you created an article for lists you as the primary. Wikipedia is not a venue to advertise your sites, your self, or your projects. Please do not create advertising for yourself or your website on Wikipedia. - Tεx τ urε 21:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In your logic info that is posted support a content will become an advertisement. So why don't you remove all of the content posted by me to support that particular topic to which I'm contributin to? No ventures or efforts are born full fledged.
Arun

Any articles created about the user or the user's projects are inherently biased and self serving. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising oneself or one's projects. - Tεx τ urε 14:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruaidhri Conroy[edit]

I am not Ruaidhri Conroy, I am a fan of his. The page provided information on an Irish actor. There seems to be confision here, but if you research the document you will find it to be valid. Please reconsider the speedy delete. [RoryRules2 04/05/2006: 22:50]

I placed it for deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruaidhri Conroy. Please provide your reasons to keep it. - Tεx τ urε 22:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia[edit]

See how irritating/alarming that is? I really don't know what I'm supposed to have done. All my edits have been serious and constructive. Which of them do you consider to be an 'experiment'? Please tell me, you've got me all worried. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.109.211 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On September 28th, as dated in my comment, your IP address added "darrell jenkins is gay" to the Homosexuality article. Since you are responding to me in May you may not be the same user. If not, disregard a message dated eight months ago. - Tεx τ urε 14:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Head, Hawaii[edit]

One of the pictures on the Diamond Head, Hawaii article is up for nomination to become a featured picture! You can see the picture here. Please add a supporting vote on its nomination page here or, more specifically, here, if you feel it's worthy. Thanks for your help! Cathryn 16:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First image on the Web[edit]

WRT: [23] Call me crazy, but didn't Tony close the AfD as keep? [24] KWH 22:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I'm OK with a merge, but I think that the redirect should stay. KWH 22:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I undeleted the redirect. There's no reason to delete it and redirects are cheap. If you objected to my close you could have talked to me or taken it to deletion review. --Tony Sidaway 02:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete a redirect. That's a good idea. - Tεx τ urε 15:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Fiction nominated for an Article Improvement Drive[edit]

I noticed you've edited fan fiction, and I figured you'd want to know that the article has been nominated for an Article Improvement Drive. :) Runa27 23:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Barnstar Award[edit]

Please offer your opinion, vote, or whatever about your choice for the image to be used with the Islamic Barnstar Award at the Barnstar proposals page. Although there is consensus for the concept of an Islamic Barnstar Award, some editors would like to change the image for the award. I was just thinking you should be aware of this discussion because you have contributed to Islamic-related articles, received the Islamic Barnstar Award, or have contributed to the Islam-related Wikiprojects, etc.--JuanMuslim ^1m 03:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Spb_trinity_cathedral_fire.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Spb_trinity_cathedral_fire.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 OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]