User talk:TheronJ/Archive/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< User talk:TheronJ | Archive

Contents

[edit] RfC opened for Mr j galt

An RfC has been opened here.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks and a request

Thanks for your good faith and your collaborative spirit. Working on the articles with you has been a refreshing change and I am greatly heartened by your willingness to focus on the article quality and avoid 'partisan' squabbling.

I'm also writing to ask that we consolidate the two versions of the introduction back into one - by striking RonCram's 'second version', or merging them. IMHO, having more than one version is problematic and becoming divisive yet again. Anyway, thanks - and have a good day. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm glad we were able to find some common ground, and I appreciate your attitude on the pages as well. I find the word dialectic pretentious, but I have to admit that I admire the dialectic process that occurs when Wikipedia works. I agree that the two versions are getting awkward - I'm inclined to just move "2.0" into the regular article and start going from there. TheronJ 19:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels

Hi Welcome to the Novels WikiProject. Being a small group currently there is plenty of scope for influencing things and making your contribution count. We are about establishing standards for Novel based articles and writing articles that meet our own and others high standards, and to improve Wikipedia's diet of articles on Fiction books, otherwise called Novels. Please be very welcome. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 08:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Laughing Corpse

In retrospect, perhaps {{wikify}} was the wrong tag to use on that article. I was specifically trying to refer to the lack of wikilinks in the article. Nice edits to that article, btw. When I first saw your edits (Laughing Corpse is on my watchlist), I thought about leaving you a compliment. S'pose I'll do that now. Good job. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 23:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nixon

I believe the Imperial Presidency was, ultimately, responsible for the burglaries; and the deletion by the redlink was uncalled for. But there may be a compromise possible; which I hope you will cupport. (And executive responsibility for the breakins was what he was covering up.) Septentrionalis 23:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hirsi Ali

About this edit [1]. I'm not using the weblog as a source to establish facts, I'm merely noting a critical observation made by one of the major Dutch media. This is not some random weblog but one of the biggest Dutch websites owned by the biggest newspaper of the Netherlands. [2]--84.30.97.206 17:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. If you have time, please take a look at my talk entry. (here). I don't have anything personal against blogs, but the WP policies in question are very clear. TheronJ 17:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :)--84.30.97.206 18:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for working with me - I appreciated the opportunity to work with you, and the education on Dutch journalism.  ;) TheronJ 18:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikiproject Horror/Collaboration of the month

Hi! I noticed your name on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror membership list and am writing to all members who have not voted for the Collaboration of the month. Today is the designated selection day to choose the collaboration, but we currently have a tie between the two articles receiving the most votes, John Carpenter and Dario Argento. I am hoping to remedy this by drumming up a few more votes. Note that by voting for any nominated article (not limited to these two) you are indicating your "commitment to support and aid in collaborating on that specific article if it is chosen," so please feel absolutely free to ignore this message if for any reason you don't wish or would not be able to participate.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don Juan (Cole)

thanks for the advice TheronJ look at Rudolf Hess I did the Operation Barbarossa part. I"m sure it violates all Wiki procedures. I think you can pretty well say anything in wikispeak that you can in standard english if you couch it in the proper lingo. you're probably right about Karch. I just don't have the stomach to read NeoKon stuff carefully w/o my gag reflex kicking in. I see Cole as a valuable national resource- somebody that's really clued in to Shiaa Islam. All the Likudniks at the site have on their minds is tarring him as an anti-semite. here's hoping that no further wars break out. Take Care!--Will314159 18:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

More Juan Cole

copied and pasted the following for your consideration Personally, I'm staying out of editing the article itself; I've just dropped by to put out enough of the flames that this article gets unlocked and editing proceeds as normal. I do agree that it seems like there is a consensus on Sandbox/1, so perhaps a couple of the regular participants should ask an admin to unlock the pages. --William Pietri 23:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, maybe we should discuss the topic elsewhere. As for the apparent consensus on sandbox/1, I really don't know how to ask an admin to change the damn page finally. It's like we're all sitting at the dinner table looking at each other, waiting for someone to start eating. Greg Kuperberg 23:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems the discussion went off topic in this section. I unprotected Juan Cole/sandbox/1. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks. But what I meant by "the damn page" was not sandbox/1, but the actual Juan Cole page, the one that was locked weeks ago. Almost everyone here agrees that sandbox/1 should or could replace it, but we plebes cannot do it. Greg Kuperberg 23:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

Contacting Admins I thought William was an administrator but if he's not and if Humus is not willing to take the action why not put a request on SlimV's talk page to pull down what's there for the Juan Article and put up Sandbox1 take CAre!--Will314159 00:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

i've copied some of this discussion and put it on SlimVls talk page and I"ll also do it on some other admins that have showed an interest on this page. Take Care!--Will314159 01:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Also copied and pasted discussion on jaco♫plane talk page. Take Care! --Will314159 01:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC) [edit]

So what's the deal?

It appears there was consensus to replace the protected page with the stripped down sandbox page but keep it protected. That hasn't happened yet. It's also not clear what sandbox page new additions should be made to. Can anyone clarify whether we are moving forward here or not? Thanks.--csloat 22:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the position that JC is given too much credit. I think more attention should be given to controversies around him. BTW, I don't recall any other article where a temp version locked. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Take Care!--Will314159 01:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cited you on 'Election' RfAr

FYI. You are welcome to comment, etc, as you see fit. I thought it appropriate to inform you I was using your words. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments are most appreciated

Thanks for providing your opinions and on a personal note thanks for your kind comments. I'm confident that if the various individuals involved act in good faith, the situation will work itself out. Oh - at the end of your last bullet point, did you mean 'Phil would mediate' or 'Phil would seek mediation'? Because objectively speaking, if mediation is pursued I'd rather Phil not be the mediator. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I'm always glad to offer my opinion, as you know.  ;-P Good luck with the RFA and/or mediation and thanks for all your work on the encylopedia. TheronJ 18:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Your recent comments and advice were most welcome and I'm grateful. We'll see what comes of all this. Please see User:Kizzle's talk page for an uncharacteristic mini-rant of mine to give you an idea of my mindset right now. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comments at arbcom, are of quite high quality. Kudos. I fear the arbitrators have painted themselves into a corner by involving themselves in an issue of content on the flimsiest of behavior pretexts. In fact, editor behavior has been almost completely ignored. I hope they don't set some unfortunate new precedents. I can't understand why this was not declined for not going through standard dispute processes such as mediation or RFC, particularly since it was rejected once previously on those grounds. Derex 23:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I appreciate the feedback. I actually have no strong opinion whether the ArbCom should judge content or not, but I am sceptical about the current stance, which is "the pages are bad, and they must get better or else, but we can't tell you how they are bad because that would be content." That said, it's a novel remedy -- for all we know, it will work fine.TheronJ 23:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm way past mere skepticism... the lack of open discussion, flippant commentary and Fred's open advocacy for ArbCom to dictate to editors just what, and how much, they must edit and improve an article - to avoid banning - are particularly vile streaks in what is the most anti-collaborative exercise I have ever seen in a medium ostensibly known for consensus and collective reasoning. The state of the articles is nowhere near what they are painting, and to have these complaints accompanied with requests for banning (without ANY of the intermediate steps) is doubly foul. This is all to say nothing of the fact that the topic is so charged and controversial that it by definition requires patient adherence to a regular process and exhaustive attempts at consensus (all utterly ignored and bypassed in this case). I think Wikipedia does itself no favor conducting it's affairs in such deterministic and 'innovative' ways on topics of this nature. I am frankly disgusted and appalled. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It would probably be a sound idea to empower some group to assess article quality. With the exception of Charles Matthews, the current lot is poorly qualified for the job. The bottom line is that content is explicitly outside their mandate. They were elected for other qualities, and I would hope restraint is among them. Derex 04:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd be interested in your thoughts about the new conservative message board, especially as I'm under the impression that you personally lean towards the conservative side. Derex 07:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please take notice (article 'Suppressive Person')

Talk:Suppressive Person #27 --Olberon 07:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

TheronJ, just a word of thanks for your efforts to introduce a constructive and civil tone to some of the Scientology articles. There is a heated 'information war' going on throughout these pages between opponents and proponents of Scientology that has badly degenerated over the last month or two, and it is probably going to take some concerted effort to get them back on the right track. I think more patient and constructive nudging on the talk page by 'outside' editors as you have demonstrated is exactly what is needed. Really Spooky 13:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much - I appreciate the feedback.TheronJ 14:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree! --Olberon 15:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for joining!

Thanks for signing up to Wikipedia:WikiProject Law - any particular areas of interest? BD2412 T 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Law selections

Greetings, fellow WikiProject Law member! One of our tasks on this WikiProject is the upkeep of Portal:Law, where we have set up a four week cycle wherein each week one of four key features - the selected article, biography, case, or image - is rotated out. Previous selections can be found at Portal:Law/former selections. Please contribute your thoughts at Portal talk:Law as to likely candidates for future rotations in each of these categories. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Conduct RfC against Commodore Sloat

Hi, I'm contacting you to ask that you take a look at the conduct RfC brought against me by TDC (talk • contribs). I'm contacting you because the RfC involves some pages that you have edited on in the past. I know there's really not much you and I have agreed on, but I value whatever contribution you may make to the RfC page, if you are so inclined. Thanks.--csloat 07:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I've got it on my watchlist, and will chime in if TDC can get a second nominator.TheronJ 13:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Novels WikiProject Newsletter June 2006

Here is a new initiative for our project. You are recieving this as you have at some point signed up as a "member" of the project. Have a look at the newsletter via the link and see what you think. The June 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Juan Cole

With regard to your comment, i never have deleted stuff just because I don't like it. Don't confuse the accusation with the intent. If that was the case, I would have deleted the highly inflammatory "Elders of Zion" bullcrap a long time ago. I was alerting Elizimir to the fact that she did not have "the clean hands" to be making that kind of allegation. I always act with logic and reason and give that reason on the talk page. The provost marshall comment was pure fluff, it was replaced by something more probative and I accept that. the smear campaign by Rubin & co. was not the cause but it still is a controversy. You proposed a solution one time to the Douglas Feith corroboration and it was quickly deleted by Armon/Isarig I forget which. Presently there's a clique taking turns deleting an external reference to a colorful earthy editorial because they don't like it or it's prejudicial to their cause. Take Care! --Will 16:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BJAODN

Rove fingered Joe Wilson's wife? No wonder Wilson was so mad.  ;-) TheronJ 19:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Try a bit harder to resist next time, will ya? :-) --Uncle Ed 19:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] email activation

Could you please activate your email? I would like to be able to discuss with you in private. Ideogram 01:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok. TheronJ 17:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If I may be Candide for a moment

I'm glad you only said "cut back" -- I don't think I can do it cold turkey. Precis 20:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't take any more of this punishment. Mercy, s'il vous plais. TheronJ 01:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to SCOTUS cases wikiproject

I have been behind in welcoming new participants, but I just wanted to say welcome to the WikiProject on U.S. Supreme Court Cases. Thanks for your great work on Moss v. Bush and hope to see you at the next PCA!--Kchase02 T 18:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been busy, but I will try to pitch in. TheronJ 18:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I made a mistake in singly listing Braunfeld v. Brown as a case that needed to be created. As you discovered, it and four other cases were essentially all about the same issue. I proposed a merger at Talk:McGowan v. Maryland. In any case, I think we'll be able to save all the hard work you did, but I'm sorry that I wasn't conscientious enough to catch the cases' similarity before I listed Braunfeld as a requested case.--Kchase02 T 07:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WoT Question

Since Nescio has a habit of removing comments I put on his page, I will say it here. The conflict began when Nescio began editing the introduction, and the "What this is addressing" section. He also edited the arguments put forth. As this was done after many had voted, and as the edits misrepresented what the page was about, they were reverted. He considered this to be us removing his comments, which is definately not how I see it. He was free to discuss the issue, but not to change the issue. After a few days we reached the consensus from discussion (which you saw) and I placed a note at the top telling people that it was reached, and linking to the Iraq War talk page. He removed this a few times saying there was no consensus, and after we reverted he placed a comment under it calling it a "fallacious claim" and whatnot. Zer0 then moved this comment down to the discussion section, after which Nescio claimed we had manipulated his comments. After this point he began to remove all of his comments from the page. Zer0 and I (and others too) reverted this because it was in violation of WP:Point, and because people had responded to his statements and removing them would be highly confusing. And thats where things stand today. And ofcourse you can see his side here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05 Wikipedia:WOT. Rangeley 19:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Rangeley, would you be interested in "starting fresh" with Nomen? If it were up to me, I would suggest that the three of you agree to archive all the past discussions and begin negotiting on a new straw poll and or other dispute resolution procedure for the underlying issue. Thanks, TheronJ 19:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Frankly I dont care at all about Nescio, I am not "pressing charges" against him and do not intend to. There is, however, no reason to make another straw poll. While the "personal issue" that seems to be going on is quite messy, the actual issue of including the Iraq War in the War on Terrorism is not. Nescio has not responded to GTBacchus's latest question posted on June 29th, despite being asked several times since then. All I want is for Nescio to respond to the question, found here. If he has a legitimate complaint, he must say it. All of this other personal stuff isnt important, and seems to be being used as a diversion of sorts from the real issue. Rangeley 19:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I am also not concerned with personal issues, they seem to be distractions from the real issue. There is a general problem attempting to reach a concensus with nescio because his issue is not facts, but justification. He does not lay out his view either, making it a jump from one arguement to the next, as you attempt to follow the reason and convey a new counter point every post. I have asked Nescio many many times before to just state why he thinks the US went to war, this way a proper counter arguement can be listed. However Nescio does not want to layout out his points. Furthermore I am wondering if this even needs a concensus, its a 27-3 vote, that constitutes a super majority at 90%. I also have a problem wth the way Nescio attempts to mislead people, summarizing polls that are not actually based on the topic. People voted if War on Terrorism should be in the infobox, the votes was in favor of keeping it out. However Nescio interprets this poll to mean people do not believe the War on Terrorism is linked to Iraq War. If you look at some of the votes however, many people simply felt since it was debated that it should not be included, not that its not linked. This is why the Wikipedia:WOT poll was started, to address the issue directly. I am more then open to Nescio contributing, I just think he needs to stop being disruptive to do it. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
There is other issues here as well. Nescio has gone on a rampage of WOT related articles in violation of WP:POINT. Basically arguing both sides of the coin when its conveinient. First Nescio removes the WOT template from the NATO page, stating the war on terror is a Bush administration war and not NATO. Then he goes to the War on Terror page and removes the US from the opening paragraph stating since the US is part of NATO and NATO is conducting some operations, then its a NATO war. How can it be a Bush only war, and a NATO only war at the same time? Oddly enough this user originally was in favor of removing Iraq War from the WOT template, however now that people did not support this, he is instead attempting to flood the template with as many non major events related to the Iraq War. For instance the original layout was Major Events, then Related Events, he changed this to related articles and has since added 6+ articles all with a negative slant on the US. Its obvious this user does not support the war, which is fine, I do not either, however they also refuse to layout a position making a concensus impossible, also they refuse to budge as they have said themselves. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Novels WikiProject Newsletter July 2006

Here is the new edition of our monthly newsletter. The July 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MedCab: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05 Wikipedia:WOT

IN THE MEDIATION CABAL; Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05 Wikipedia:WOT

Please note that while you are not a named disputant in the matter, you are being notified of our finding due to your interest in our action per your latest comments to User_talk:Nescio. Thanks.

After review of the case notes, the messages, the page itself, and the comments from Nescio quoted below, we have decided that the best course of action is to refer this matter to administrators for review.

To be clear this is not about the part of WOT debate, this is about the current team up to prohibit restoration of the original comments on the "poll," and the refusal to let me comment on that...Either restore all deleted comments to that page, or grant me the right to remove my remaining comments. Further I would like Zero to stop stalking me.

User conduct disputes, specifically ones that require or seek enforcement action, are not within our perview. We cannot make a blanket decision to revert deleted comments at the page in question, nor can we "grant the right to remove" anything from an article or talk page or generally enforce any action taken against undesirable user behavior as we are an informal group of mediators acting for the benefit of the encyclopedia.

The case is remanded to administrators for review. CQJ 06:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake has offered to assist in the matter further if necessary. Please contact him directly should you require his assistance. CQJ 06:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

/s/
CQJ 06:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC);
Clerk of the Mediation Cabal

[edit] Danse Macabre

Removed the two white side bars that made the image look like a goofy scam. No side bars, better resolution. --The Scourge 05:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, TheronJ 01:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Made a first draft, so feel free to comment. When you agree with the wording we can file the RFC. Sincerely. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I am withdrawing from the article so feel free to imlement what you want. Another editor prefers harrasing me by edit warring over every article I edit, and contrary to you he is incapable of civil and logical debate. Therefore I see no point in continuing our discussion as he has massively deleted everything he disagrees with. Although I know you and I have different views, I hope you understand that I am trying to improve an article (I did remove some of the sources) but others simply act in a very aggressive and disruptive way. Even a new attempt at mediation is failing. Clearly my edits are constently reverted and as such my contribution is futile. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good edits

Nice, subtle, but significant additions and tweaking at Black Panther. My compliments! -- Tenebrae 13:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. TheronJ 01:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfAr involving Zero

Apparently mediation does not result in improvement of the harrasment I endure. Since I am at my wits end I have filed a case at ArbCom. This is to notify you should you wish to comment there. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that things didn't work out better. I will take a look. TheronJ 11:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anita Blake

Thanks for sorting out the redirect. I wasn't sure how to alter it and didn't want to mess up the main page for the series, so it seemed easier just to set up an entirely new page. However, if there's a better way of doing it then by all means tidy it up. I won't be offended. Silverthorn 16:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Done, thanks! TheronJ 17:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Anita Blake (fictional character)

Your recent edit to Anita Blake (fictional character) (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 17:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That was fast. If anyone is reading my page, I promise I'm not a vandal.  ;-P TheronJ 17:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Go do something useful.

As opposed to aiding and abbeting vandals on my talk page, I suggest you go make useful edits to the encyclopedia. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I'd be willing to sign on in good faith, as I wasn't happy with the wholesale reversions myself when I first saw the thing roll out on WP:ANI. rootology 21:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Some relevant links here and here. rootology 21:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll file it now. TheronJ 21:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Whoops - I can't. The RFC needs two users who have tried and failed to resolve this issue, which I think is only me, Rangely, and History21. I'll hold off. TheronJ 21:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, TruthCrusader joined - I filed. TheronJ 22:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would love to help. Just tell me what I need to do.

History21 22:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)History21

If you agree with my summary of the problem and the attempts to resolve the conflict, just sign on at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hipocrite#Users certifying the basis for this dispute with a pound sign and your signature. TheronJ 22:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I had a very limited involvement. All I did was what you saw, tell him that blind reversions are not a good idea, to which he disagreed. I also am going on vacation starting tomorrow, but I will see what I can do. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Rangeley, I don't want to spam -- if you're not interested in signing on, then by all means don't. I just wanted to alert you to the RFC, since I named you in it. TheronJ 22:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I dont mind signing in on it, just wanted to say that I was relatively new in this incident. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Updated the RfC, but Hipocrite says you did not properly file it... rootology 00:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats

You're about to file an RFC backed a politics edit warrior, a single-issue edit warrior, and a troll against an editor who has a subtantial history of positive contributions to this encyclopedia. I'm certain this act is going to really make everyone's time better. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Which one am I? TruthCrusader 16:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I suppose the case would be stronger with a Paladin on our side, but I think we can manage. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Hipocrite, (1) I tried to resolve this issue with you by discussion, and you refused; (2) Personal attacks against the other people don't really help, (3) you agreed to the RFC, and (4) I think the RFC is a good idea -- if consensus favors you, I'll be happy to abide by it, and if consensus favors me, maybe it will do some good. TheronJ 00:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I did not expect you to go out and recruit editors involved in an unrelated conflict with me to participate in what you obviously hope will be a lynch mob. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I promise I didn't try to recruit anyone. I notified the editors who had attempted dispute resolution on this issue, which is how I read the RFC process. I also promise I don't want a lynch mob - I already know how the people who have discussed this issue feel, and I know that you don't respect those people. I'm hoping that some additional experienced editors chime in. As you know, my first preference was that you and I would agree to sumbit an RFC jointly, but you refused. I'm still very hopeful that the RFC will be useful on this issue, so if there's anything I can do to encourage you to be a productive part of it, please let me know. TheronJ 01:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
There is very little you can do save disavowing your cosponsors. Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
So far, I'm assuming good faith with regard to them and you, but I will if I think their conduct here is inappropriate. Sorry for the grief, and I hope we work things out. TheronJ 01:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
You are Ignoring Bad Acts. Why were they reading my talk page? Seem a mite suspicious? Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

For anyone reading that cares, I keep every page I've ever been involved with/posted to beyond random little minor edits under my various WP bookmarks. One for Main articles, one for Main:talk, one for all the User:Talks, and one for the Wikipedia/Wikipedia:Talks. No stalking, no nothing, just I see they get updated, and I go look as time permits. I simply choose to keep a vague track of anything I've worked on in the past. rootology 01:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So, to be clear, you watch my talkpage for ways that you can try to piss me off? Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
To be frank I don't think of you period, or pretty much any person on WP, when not interacting with them, as I have better things to do with my time. Although I'm flattered (?) you think so highly of me. I have every page I edit set to be watched, so I can see subsequent changes and replies to me on other people's talk page if I'm working with them. Typical bookmarks of mine, because the full Watchlist link frankly sucks with everything thrown in one pot. If you look at what I wrote in the RfC Hipocrite, I didn't slam you, I just said that it was one bad edit. I did look through your contribs link when putting that reply together, but you'll notice I didn't say anything inflammatory about you, at all, and it was done for completeness/fairness.
I didn't say you should be banned "longer and longer" (I've never been blocked by anyone) as you did in that random flaming you threw me on the deleted MONGO RfC simply for my signing my name with no comment to it. For what it's worth I think you're an alright contributor and an above average copy editor, from what I saw. Actually, I didn't say anything should be done to you, in any way, for the RfC. I believe I even stated this could be a groundwork for a general policy vs. such extensive or deep revisions being done without an OK from ArbCom--which has nothing to do with you specifically per se. It was simply an outside analysis of what happened that I tried to keep NPOV. My harshed criticism was that you simply overdid it. I don't know if your intense dislike of me is simply because I apparently had such diamatrically opposed views from yours during the ED mess, or what... or because I simply voiced out my opinions in good faith. By the way, I do contribute productively to the project. Beats me. Sorry for tying up your Talk page, Theron. rootology 01:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
You would be so much more believable if you weren't wikistalking me. Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, hold out the olive branch, get slapped with it, I guess. Good day. rootology 01:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Novels WikiProject Newsletter August 2006

Here is the new edition of our monthly newsletter. The August 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Guidelines

I happened to catch your advice on crediting/sourcing images in articles on History21's discussion page. As someone who's still learning all the rules, I found your advice quite helpful and have retained it for future use.

Thanks.

PainMan 17:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Understandable Concerns

I do not take offense by your questions. You do not know me, and must assume that I could possibly be acting in a fraudulent manner. But I do state, very firmly, that I do not sockpuppet. I have written Wikipedia articles primarily from library (both school and public) computers who share IP addresses with other high schools. Given that many of the users accused of either sockpuppeting me or being my sockpuppets also seem to come from the Baltimore, it would not surprise me in the least if some of the IP addresses do match. However, if they do (and they may not), it would be because several users from the same locale worked together on related articles, not because one or more of them was vandalizing Wikipedia.

I am almost certain that Lilyana is a Marylander (I can't say for sure, though), and I know for a fact that Joan53 is.

The best thing I would say would be to look at my edits. Do most of them appear legitimate and well-intended? Do they exhibit sockpuppet characteristics? There you go then. Thank you again for your involvement on my behalf and on the behalf of other users who have been wronged by User: Hipocrite and others like him.

History21 00:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)History21

Fair enough, thanks. TheronJ 00:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here You Go

[3] That's one of the IP addresses in question.


[edit] Other IP Addresses

This: [4] and this: [5] are the other IP addresses allegedly involved. One is registered to Pennsylvania, the other to Virginia. I guess I've been hopping back and forth between the states to hoax every few hours from a different one.

History21 00:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)History21

[edit] History21 is a sock

See this, this, and this. rootology (T) 00:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hipocrite Rfc...

You filed the Rfc for reasons you felt were sufficient and I can certainly understand from your point of view why you felt that. I wouldn't be either embarrassed or anything like that if I were you...truthfully, Hipocrite is uncanny about his ability to find and locate sock accounts and editing similarities...but that doesn't mean he is always right...but it sure seems that way! I had big fight with him about a year ago and I sure don't want to wrestle that tiger again. Keep up the good work.--MONGO 04:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Mongo. I was sad to see Hipo change names, but maybe his restart will be interesting. Hopefully, we'll all find out how it turned out someday. TheronJ 03:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advocacy request

Heyo, Steve Caruso here. There is a Request for assistance by WikiWoo (talk) on Roger Maloney. Would you be willing to take their case? If you will, please leave a note and sign under the entry on WP:AMARQ and change "(pending)" in the heading to "(open)." When you're finished with the case, set it to "(closed)". If you're not able to take the case, please leave me a message on my talk page so I can continue searching for a willing Advocate. Many thanks! אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 14:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos

for taking on User:WikiWoo. Might be a rough ride, but probably worth it in the end. Just zis Guy you know? 18:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Azskeptic (talk • contribs)

Azskeptic has threatened another user on this site using personal information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ParalelUni#Blocked

"Spike, stop it. Your identity is known and if you keep making threats a mental health evaluation will be asked for in your county court to see if help can be given to you. Sorry to the administrators to witness such a meltdown in public from a SC medical school student. Azskeptic 22:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)"

I ask that this statement be removed and this user be banned. He knows this user from another site and this is def. cyber-stalking. Local police will be involved if this issue is not resolved in a timely fashion as well as a lawyer to pursue action against Wikipedia and this user. 24.23.65.115 23:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

24, I assume that you are probably a Spike sockpuppet. Regardless, I asked Az to remove the portion of his comment dealing with legal proceedings, which I assume was inadvertent per WP:AGF, and I assume he/she will do so on next sign-on. However, I also think the rest of his comment was well justified, and I don't see any threat to reveal your/Spike's personal information online. Just as I asked Az to do, I will ask you to remove your legal threat from here and from your posting on the personal attacks report page. Thanks, TheronJ 23:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It is not a threat. The resource for cyber-stalking says that threats should be reported to local police. I have no plan on removing anything until the original comment is removed. The comment should be removed ASAP by an admin and not a user once it is reported and noticed according to WP:LEGAL. You even refuse you follow your own rules? Refusing to take care of an obvious WP:LEGAL violation (you are the one that said it was a LEGAL violation) is good evidence for a lawsuit against wikipedia that they refuse to limit harm done even according to their own rules 24.23.65.115 23:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
24, I really don't want to get in a fight with you. I'm just calling things like I see them. As such . . .
  1. Threatening to report something to the police is practically the definition of a WP:LEGAL violation. It doesn't matter if you think you have good cause -- WP:LEGAL says report it if you have to, but don't talk about it on Wikipedia;
  2. I'm not an admin, just an opinionated loudmouth;
  3. As I read it, WP:LEGAL doesn't require legal threats to be removed by an admin, it requires copyright infringement, slander, and libel to be removed by an admin. (And in response to your next comment, I don't see anything in Az's post that is slanderous or libelous, and anyway, I'm not an admin); and
  4. I asked Az to remove his legal comment, and I asked you to remove yours. Seems pretty even handed to me.
Thanks, TheronJ 23:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If you aren't an admin why the hell are you even involved? 24.23.65.115 23:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

24, please stop deleting this section. I only asked you to delete your legal threat -- I have now done that. Thanks, TheronJ 00:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I want you to restore it if you are going to leave the rest of it. You have no right to edit my talk on this page. 24.23.65.115 00:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Done - I understood from your edit summaries that you were willing to delete it. I still recommend that you do, but it's up to you. TheronJ 00:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, regardless of what you think I'm not an asshole. 24.23.65.115 00:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Spike, I don't know what your underlying problem is, but let me say this. I don't know you, and I don't know JzG, and I'd never heard of either one of you a week ago, but this kind of stuff is so far out of line, I don't even know where to start. My honest recommendation to you is that you either (1) to JzG and start trying to make amends, or (2) at a minimum, drop off Wikipedia for a few years - there are plenty of other things to do in the world, and you won't do yourself or anyone any good by harrassing this one.
Your behavior is the worst I have ever seen, anywhere on the web. I don't bear you any ill will, but I really think you will be personally better off if you just drop it, and if you apologize to JgZ. Thanks, TheronJ 00:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't owe him anything, especially an apology. If anything he owes me one. He is the one that abused his administrative abilities and then took the argument to my talk page and insulted me. He deserved everything I said to him and more. I am not going to leave Wikipedia, they just converted me from a contributing user into a major headache.

I would appreciate if you would remove this entire conversation from your talk page, but that is up to you. 152.163.100.67 01:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I prefer to keep it. TheronJ 01:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I figured as much. 152.163.100.67 01:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RECALL

Hi, I think you might find this policy proposal at WP:RECALL relevant, and I would be curious of your comments there and on the talk page. Thanks! rootology (T) 17:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Removing 3RR warnings

Oh really? Seeing as its my own "discussion" page, what's the point of it being editable if i am not "allowed" to remove stuff? Rm uk 15:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Rm, the pgeneral consensus is that you shouldn't delete warnings from your talk page. (In this case, too, Isarig could have just reported you for 3RR, so the warning is actually the nicer choice).
Anyway, I appreciate your edits - are you interested in discussing possible compromises on the "hoax allegations/conspiracy theories" on the Qana talk page? TheronJ 16:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm if "Isarig" is so interested in the rules how come he never warned Lividore for calling me stupid? I could easily have responded similarly but didn't! and yes i am interested in a compromise 16:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if you were offended. If it helps, I did ask "everyone" to stop the personal attacks, and I agree that Lividore was out of line. TheronJ 16:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaza

Thank you, cesarb left instructions about doing something to that effect but this saves be the effort and now I can also see what the references look like. Do you have any suggestions to improve it? Carbonate 16:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've actually been thinking about that. My major concern is that I think that many of your references are using the term "concentration camp" metaphorically. Would you be open to a compromise that says something like, "Because of the conditions in the Gaza strip, some commentators have referred to the Gaza strip itself as a concentration camp?" I wouldn't have any problem with a compromise like that, although I think you would still see some resistance. I might put a proposal on your scratchpad. TheronJ 16:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advocacy for WikiWoo

I don't think his timeout did much for him. He's now accusing Ontario's Regional Governments of being run by Freemasons (see here), and has further accused me of vandalising and censoring his contributions. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 03:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yes

Yes is my answer to your question on my page, spelled out there. [6] Terryeo 14:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are very idealistic

I think optimism is a good thing, unless you have clear evidence to the contrary.--Fahrenheit451 14:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. TheronJ 15:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2¢ about your efforts with Terryeo

I hope you don't mind my piping in here--I see that you are attempting to negotiate a way for Terryeo to function more productively in the Scientology articles. As one who has made similar efforts on-and-off for several months, I'd like to offer a couple of observations from which you can take whatever seems germane, if anything (clearly, my efforts haven't done much good). One aspect of the problem is that Terryeo's objections are often stated in a manner that tends to confuse the issue and inflame the other editors who are, at this point, exasperated with Terryeo from the get-go. The posting about "unrecorded radio talk shows" is typical--there is something worth addressing about that citation, but the issue has nothing at all to do with unrecorded radio talk shows. This may seem trivial, based on one example. In the aggregate, though, it is far from trivial--it is the basic character of Terryeo's participation in editing, and it is closely related to the reason that he was unanimously banned from editing Scientology-related articles by an Arbatration committee. The large proportion of misleading, nonsensical, tangential and outright false charges among Terryeo's posts tends to mask those points where he actually raises a valid issue. His tendency to respond to challenges to what he has written with non-sequiters that fail to acknowledge the criticism at all only exacerbates the problem. The sheer volume of his objections also adds to the problem--he has virtually made a full-time career of objecting to things on Scientology article talk pages. Indeed, several editors have speculated that Terryeo's actual goal is to disrupt and interfere with the good-faith editing of those pages, particularly insofar as the articles are likely to present material unflattering to the Church of Scientology. (The fact that Terryeo has stated in so many words that "I do, without a doubt, make POV edits" combined with the fact that Scientology has a policy, called "Dev-T," which is employed to dissipate the efforts of "enemies" by forcing them to do needless, costly work, has caused some editors to conclude that this is in fact Terryeo's purpose.) Assuming that Terryeo is operating in good faith, there is a serious problem with his ability to identify and clearly state what it is that he is objecting to, why, and how the situation might be remedied to the benefit of the article (as you point out, the latter isn't required, but will go some distance toward establishing good faith). Perhaps, if you and Terryeo are willing to do it, you could consider vetting some of Terryeo's written objections before he posts them to the talk pages, to be sure that he has clearly identified a legitimate issue for consideration and to avoid the introduction of claims that distract from that issue. Good luck. BTfromLA 16:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to cool down the Israel issue

Hi, again on the Israel page, especially the Human Rights controversy. I think that your mediation attempt was very good, and I did my best to follow your advice. This was my complete rewrite of the section according to the debate which developed on the talk page (I put it here in an unwikified version):

The status of Israel regarding the safeguarding of human rights and equality for all its inhabitants is still a controversial issue. The most serious problems are related to the condition of the Arab population in the country, and the occupied territories.(21)
Some UN groups and NGOs like Amnesty International are highly critical of human rights in Israel.(22) Other sources have accused these groups of anti-Israel bias. A lot of their criticism (although certainly not all) seems to focus around the Occupied Territories and the Israeli separation barrier: in general, all sources agree that the state of Israel is less respectful of human rights in the Occupied Territories,(23) near the settlements and along its borders than inside proper Israeli territory; despite that, Israeli citizens enjoy a level of civil rights(24) (25) and freedom(26) which can be compared to Western standards.(27)
The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel proclaimed that the state would respect human rights and ensure social and political equality.(28) Nevertheless, over fifty years after this declaration was made, many Arab citizens of Israel claim to be suffering discrimination.(29)

I expected the other editors to correct this new version, based on your mediation. Unfortunately (even though not unexpectedly), the pro-Israel hardliner Humus sapiens just reverted to his favourite version once again (the version with no Amnesty International cite, since he's sure that AI guys have an anti-Semitic prejudice). I'm not so fond of Amnesty International, I just think it's unconceivable to exclude such a cite just because this editor doesn't like AI. Therefore, please do something, I think an arbitration could be useful since this is a very sensitive issue and such an unbalanced section will always generate disputes if nothing is done to calm down this watchdog of the "perfect" version. Thank you again for your good work there. --MauroVan 09:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV (September 2006)

The September 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 11:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terryeo chronology

Yes, your version of events is just how I understood it--did it appear that I was representing it otherwise? I trust that the full and rather awesome dimensions of the difficulties involoved in working with Terryeo are beginning to become visible to you... imagine this times ten months! BTfromLA 17:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You probably understood it fine, but I just figured it out. As to the difficulties of working with Terry, I still think it's a shame. I still think the series could benefit by the addition of another COS-friendly editor, but it would have to be someone willing to give and take, and someone who doesn't insist on everything changing immediately (or even soon). I'll keep holding out hope that Terry finds a good rythm before he gets permabanned. TheronJ 17:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I've tried and tried with Terryeo.... if you want to pick up that torch, more power to you. I agree that the articles could benefit from a good Scientolgist or Scientology-friendly editor, but Terryeo just can't (or won't) adhere to basic standards of honest negotiation, and--though he has improved a bit on this front--he has a very shaky grasp of writing and editorial skills. Another pro-Scientology editor called justanother showed up a couple of weeks ago, and he(?) seemed both reasonable and a competent writer. Unfortunately, I think that Terryeo (and some other contentious and now-banned Scientologist editors, including AI and JimmyT) has so poisoned the atmosphere in those articles that the rare reasonable scientologist who wanders in is likely to be greeted with hostility and driven off--that may have happened with justanother... I haven't noticed him editing recently. BTfromLA 18:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St Clements University Network

You voted to delete and redirect this article. This sounds like the same thing that I meant when I wrote to merge. I'm rather new here at Wikipedia, could you please explain to me the difference? They seem the same to me but obviously they are not. Thank you in advance. Bagginator 11:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly, merging means take the information on the page and add it to the page being merged to, while "delete and redirect" means erase the information on the page and replace it with a redirect. They're close, though. TheronJ 12:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misconceptions

There's one that didn't make your list, Student Misconceptions About Chemistry, I've nominated it for deletion.--Peta 06:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks -- I've added it. TheronJ 10:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TY: Your Ken Blackwell TEL edit

Thank you for cleaning up the Blackwell page.

I've been leary to do so myself, since Kevin Baas was basically sitting on the page through the May 2 primary. He seemed obsessed with Blackwell, as the symbol to blame for Kerry losing Ohio. After May 2, he and another editor, perhaps in a pique since Blackwell won, drove off a new and good editor (theWolfster) and her experienced mentor (Merecat). It appears that Baas has moved on from Blackwell's page (after all, Blackwell is well behind in the polls). He's putting a lot of energy (and original research, imho) to creating a whole slew of articles about 2004 Presidential election controversies. He's know concentrating on only and expanding these articles.

I'm personnally very concerned about this, but I don't want to get involved. I am a recovered Obsessive-Compulsive Personality, now off medication and using behavior control to prevent regressing to Disorder. (See A Beautiful Mind, for example, as one means to understand this phenomena) 66.213.90.2 17:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I really don't want to introduce one POV or another, and I've worked productively with Kevin in the past. I'm sure the page will work out to something tight over time. Good luck with the ocd, and thanks again, TheronJ 17:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot summaries

I think together we reached somewhat of a compromise on the whole idea of comic book plot summaries. What do you think of the existence of Ultimate Fantastic Four (story arcs) as separate from the arc summaries in Ultimate Fantastic Four? --NewtΨΦ 23:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's probably a little long, it also doesn't contain any information other than plot. I'm thinking about the compromise -- I think that you and I, and the other one or two people can probably reach a compromise -- do you want me to try to write something up? Thanks, TheronJ 10:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think the summaries on Ultimate Fantastic Four are of ideal length, but if you want to write something up that might change my mind, I'm up for it. --NewtΨΦ 23:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advocacy availability

I'm available, but haven't taken a case since the forms changed. Can I just go ahead and take one, or should you assign me to one? (I'll be happy to take AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/September 2006/Doc Halloween). TheronJ 15:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

At this point, go and grab one that you'd prefer. There are too many to distribute and not enough free Advocates. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 16:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Gentry

I'm not bothered by your revert because you were correct. It was better before I changed it. Thanks! Mapetite526 21:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for being my advocate

Shows you how much I know how to use Wikipedia. I answered your questions buy talking to myself. I just clicked the + sign on the following page. I do not know if you can read the page but the answers are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_Halloween

Is that page the page you wanted to discuss it on or do I click "talk" beside your name in my watchlist?

Let's just talk on your userpage. (If you want to separate out the discussion, we can make a new discussion just for our talk, but your page doesn't seem too busy right now). Thanks, TheronJ 13:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 20:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Announcement: It's an administrator!

TheronJ, thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was a robust 62/1/1, so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any questions about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks again, Chris Griswold

Good for you, Chris. Mop well. TheronJ 21:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doc Halloween

Yes I could have handled that case better. The problem is that with copyright issues I have to find a way to tell a person about our copyright politicies without telling them how to game them. There is enough varience between cases that form responces are of limited use.Geni 15:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

PrivateEditor (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)and Rootology (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) are banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. No action is taken against MONGO for any excessive zeal he has displayed. Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it. Users who insert links to Encyclopædia Dramatica or who copy material from it here may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Care should be taken to warn naive users before blocking. Strong penalties may be applied to those linking to or importing material which harasses other users.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 03:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

 For offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Convenience links

[7] I was and am involved in an extensive dispute regarding this subject on Sathya Sai Baba which even reached the arbcom. Andries 08:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Association of Members' Advocates

Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! Martinp23 21:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Policide

Thanks for the rewrite! It looks much better now. I'll write on the AFD page that I'm now satisfied that the article can be a legitimate article on the term policide and not just a tool for POV pushers.

In some ways this problem is similar to what happened to Heim theory. This is regarded as pseudoscience and I agree with that. You have POV pushers that just put articles on wikipedia for propaganda reasons. In principle such an article does deserve to be on wikipedia but then it must be maintained in a NPOV state. Some people argued that it would be impossible to do that. I voted against AFD because I thought it could be made NPOV. I was told that because I voted against AFD, I should take it upon myself to work on that article. I agreed with that and I rewrote the article.

In general, my opinion is that if someone writes a very POV article then he/she cannot argue that it should not be deleted because it can be made NPOV. It is his/her responsibility to make it NPOV in the first place. You cannot just assume that someone else will do the work for you. Because, if no one takes the burden to do it, you'll have a POV article. The only way out would be if someone volunteers to rewrite the article, as you did here and I did in case of Heim theory. Count Iblis 15:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] False accusations

Theronj, when a user uploads a low-resolution image under fair use and the user is accused otherwise, that IS a personal attack.--Fahrenheit451 19:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say it's a difference of opinion. Maybe you could explain civilly to Terry why you think the image is low res instead of jumping to DefCon2? TheronJ 19:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo is the one making the accusation before looking at the facts. The image in question is 72 pixels per inch. By any measure, that is low-resolution. Terryeo needs to take responsibility to educate himself.--Fahrenheit451 19:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It might be more constructive to just tell Terry that the image is 72 pixels per inch and that you understand that resolution to be low-res. Thanks! TheronJ 19:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo should not be making the accusation in the first place. I am not his mentor. I am here to edit wikipedia. I have no other obligation.--Fahrenheit451 19:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can take it for what it's worth, but I disagree on both points. (1) I still don't see how anyone can reasonably understand "TheronJ uploaded a high resolution image" to be a personal attack; and (2) I think WP:CIVIL actually does require you to try to work things out constructively instead of flaming Terry. Just my 2 cents, though. Thanks, TheronJ 19:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Theronj, it is a personal attack when it is a false accusation. WP:CIVIL has nothing to do with giving someone an education who is deficient in a particular area. Thanks.--Fahrenheit451 20:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BLPs and RS

How I appropriate that my entry ended up under "false accusations" on your talk page: I've been on the receiving end of a lot of that lately :-) Anyway, I want to sincerely thank you for your detailed and helpful response at WP:RS: I left more questions there for you, if you have time. Thanks again, Sandy (Talk) 02:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, TheronJ: I'm looking forward to hearing from you. I've read through Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden/Proposed decision, and find the case very hard to follow, but if I'm reading it correctly, it seems that the decision is coming down (so far) on the right side of firm enforcement of BLP as intended. I hope that's the case, and that it will help put some bite into BLP enforcement lest good editors give up. Sandy (Talk) 03:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much, TheronJ. Most helpful, enlightening, informative, and most of all - encouraging - that there is light at the end of the tunnel, that common sense usually prevails, that most editors can usually see when one is operating on good intentions and good faith, but that moving on is often the best or only option. All in all, the conclusion is that the determination of reliable sources is far less black and white than I thought (and I've deleted my fair share of NYT and WSJ editorials that I would have liked to keep :-) To answer your question, yes, normally I do take the time to fix other people's edits when possible, rather than just revert them, but 1) I've had a ton of travel this month, limited and excruciatingly slow internet access, and just haven't had time to research and clean up others' problems, and 2) Arbustoo has been ... a challenge to work with, presenting an abundance of edits that required cleanup, and posting misrepresentations or misunderstandings in many places. Anyway, advice heeded, and very much appreciated. I'll admit that it's hard to move on from a BLP when gross injustice is being done to real human beings, and I see that frustration in another editor I admire (Crockspot), so I really hope the ArbCom decision will give some more bite to protecting the real people behind BLPs. Best, Sandy (Talk) 04:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image resolution

Theronj, I do website design, among other things, and can tell you that 72 dpi is low resolution. Resolution has NOTHING to do with SIZE. It is effectively the number of pixels per unit surface area that describes an image. Nothing else. Wikipedia has been put together mostly by amateurs, and it really shows in this case: "Download high-resolution image" is nonsense and needs to be globally changed. On another subject, the scientology editing battles will not end anytime soon due to the practices of the cofs, such as fair game, sp declares and the like. The Office of Special Affairs uses volunteers who will lie and deny any connection or control from them. I know this for a fact, because I used to be involved with them. Our mutual acquaintance is just another pawn on the gameboard. He regularly scuffles with other editors as he is required to do. --Fahrenheit451 11:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can only offer my opinion, which you and Terry can take for whatever you think it's worth. IMHO, even (or especially) if you think that he's a COS operative with the sole motive of obscuring the truth, and even (or especially) if Terry thinks that you are an enemy of the COS who wants to publish anything harmful to the COS, whether or not true, it's still essential, both as a matter of WP policy and good practice that you both act like you're working together constructively to build an encyclopedia. First, you might be able to work together to improve the encyclopedia, regardless of your motives. Second, at the very least, the next time this comes up, the one of you who is the more civil is likely to have the high ground when dealing with editors who don't have a dog in the fight. Thanks, TheronJ 13:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Theronj, there was a discussion of resolution here Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Guidelines_for_.22low.22_and_.22high.22_resolution where there was agreement that 72 dpi is not high resolution. I ignore the offhand comments on the image page you cited from those who do not edit images professionally. I do. Here is another brief discussion at the bottom of the page: Template_talk:Fair_use_reduce. As for Terryeo, I tolerate him best I can. I do not think the situation with him will ever improve. If you wish to mentor him, you may. I will not participate in any further actions to fix a situation with him I have determined is not fixable. I am ending the discussion on this as I see it as a waste of my time. Thanks.--Fahrenheit451 00:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AMA Case

Hi - I've noticed you've taken the RalphLender AMA case, so I felt it best to tell you that User:Nathannoblet has, in the past, taken the case (despite not being an advocate and not being familiar with policy). If you encounter any problems, just post at WT:AMA or get in contact with me. Hope everything goes well - if you need any other help, feel free to ask at my talk page Martinp23 14:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. TheronJ 14:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem - he tried to take the case earlier today, but has been reverted - I thought I'd let you know, as his edit summary implied that he has some sense of "ownership" of the case, so he could end up giving you some bother over it - lets hope this doesn't happen :) . Martinp23 14:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Martin. I'll try to smooth things over with Nathan. I'm not sure what procedures you guys are using to qualify advocates, but I have two advocacies under my belt, one smashing success and one unfortunate failure. TheronJ 15:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
OK - sounds good. We don't really have any procedure as yet and it's something we've been avoiding. Hopefully we can avoid fully vetting all advocates - and just take action on any complaints. We've just noticed that Nathan doesn't appear to have a full understanding of WP:DR. Good luck -- Martinp23 15:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Al Gore

If consensus is reached that there's been a violation of WP:BLP policy (and I think we've established that), then this is vandalism, and must be reverted. I may be wrong (I believe I'm correct), but I'll take that slap if so. BusterD 19:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

I invite you to join the Pornography in the United States article for some copyedit, but feel free to edit it anyway. Thanks, --Brand спойт 13:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BLP:RS Questions

Re: Hannity. I'm the editor, PTR, that was on travel when SandyGeorgia ended up in a mess on the Hannity page. I'm sorry that happened since I'm the one that started the discussion. I got to the page because I recognized his name and there was a tag for copy editing. Since that's what I did for years, I began cleaning it up and tried to make sure the references were still valid.

I was trying to find information on one of the paragraphs and couldn't find quotes/dates etc. I've left a note on the discussion page about a paragraph that references Fair.org, but Fair.org references OnePeoplesProject.com and OnePeoplesProject.com apparently got the information from an opinion piece in the Philadelphia Telegraph. I wanted to know if this was a good citation on a BLP. Let me know if this is a good type of source. If there are no rules on BLP sources except consensus, let me know that as well. --PTR 01:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that meets reliable source or BLP or not, but I can see your point. Have you thought about asking for opinions on the BLP noticeboard? I'd be interested in what people there think. Thanks! TheronJ 12:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I posted the question but no answers so far. I don't know if I asked it correctly. Could you check it out? I'm not familiar with all the sections of wikipedia yet. I did get bold and removed the section until we can get an answer or consensus on it. Thanks for your help --PTR 20:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/User_talk%7ETheronJ_Archive_Archive1_df07.html"