User talk:Adraeus/Archive001

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Editing suggestions 2 Giovanni of the Black Bands 3 Atheism 4 Feloniousmonk 5 Bureaucratship 6 Endorsements page 7 Atheism 8 Atheism 9 Hello 10 Dont vandalize my user page 11 Block 12 Sense & Sensitivity 13 Darwin & Lincoln 14 Video game 15 Arbitration 16 Darwin article, page protection 17 Arbitration 18 Arbitration Committee case opening 19 Vfp15 sockpuppet? 20 Arbitration diff links 21 Arbitration Committee case closed 22 Welcome back!

[edit] Editing suggestions

Two points. First, please use the "Show preview" button, and carefully proof-read your text - this will prevent errors like [[|Lorenzo de' Medici|Lorenzo the Magnificent]]), which you left in the Medici page when you edited it. Second, you marked your change as "Minor", which wasn't really appropriate give how many changes you made to the page. I know Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Minor edits says "spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text", but the number and magnitude of your changes (e.g. changing all the names) took it past the stage where that flag was appropriate. Noel 01:39, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I always preview pages I edit. I also don't see where I erred by changing "Lorenzo de' Medici" to "Lorenzo the Magnificent." I was going to use full Italian names but I figured since this article is in English and the Medici context is given, why not use simplified English names. The "Minor edit" flag is checked by default given my current settings since nearly all of my edits are minor. Unless I'm adding new information or creating a new article, I won't bother to uncheck the minor edit flag. Adraeus 06:39, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• The problem with "[[|Lorenzo de' Medici|Lorenzo the Magnificent]]" (a cut-n-paste of your text, not a typo on my part - see the Page history for Medici for your entry) was not the change to Lorenzo the Magnificent, but the extra "|" - a formatting error that caused the link not to work. Noel 13:55, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with people editing text I wrote (check out the pages I created - I'm rarely the top edit), but when someone but gratuitously re-arranges massive amounts of stuff, without adding any new content, and introduces a flock of errors - plus to which your edit seemed hasty and careless because of the numerous errors, including grammatical and formatting errors (e.g. the broken Lorenzo link) - yeah, it's irritating. I mean, someone else asked for more stuff, you replied on the talk page, but didn't actually add any content; I did divert from other things to add content, and then had to come back and fix a bunch of mistakes. Most of your edits seemed like either an improvement, or something I could live with (most uses of names of the form [Foo} the [Bar], which I left alone - I understood your reasoning and was OK with it in most cases), and those I left. The few things I changed back were because I had specific reasons for putting them the way I did - e.g. the "Uffizi buildings" is because I wanted to differentiate with the contents (which the Medici are also largely responsible for). You don't get to have the page exactly the way you want it any more than I do. And how am I supposed to know you know who Cosimo the Elder really is? All I know is what you typed. I'd really rather be working on new pages (there are still tons of Florence-related pages missing) - this kind of stuff really takes the fun out of working on the 'pedia. Noel 13:55, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Peer editing is a necessary evil, friend.

I did not notice the extra "|" nor do I know how it appeared there. That does not mean my edits were "hasty." Using such words makes you sound like you want a fight.

The Uffizi page defines "Uffizi" as "a palace, holding one of the most famous museums in the world." Within the context of the statement referencing the Uffizi in our article which reads, "In architecture, the Medici are responsible for some notable features of Florence," architecture is mentioned and therefore logically concluding that "features" are buildings so stating that those features are buildings is redundant and thus unneeded. You also re-added the "magnificent" attribute to Uffizi which hurt the NPOV of the article.

As for new content, I'm currently working on a more informational and accurate Medici family tree using GEDCOM. There are plenty of people missing from the tree such as Salvestro de' Medici who led a rebellion and became the dictator of Florence... and who also was banished. Many of the birth and death dates are incorrect as are some connections between family members. Those whom married into the Medici family also seem to be missing. While that may be intended, I think both parents of a Medici should be listed and not just the "pureblood." Adraeus 19:39, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Here is the edit with the extra "|" in it; it's at the start of the second paragraph you modified. I used "magnificent" solely to emphasize the scale of the Medici collections, not because of an opinion about the museum. I didn't do the family tree - I've merely tried to fix errors (which are many - I'm still finding them), and only add names as needed (I felt the format was too painful to add them all). Noel 21:18, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Giovanni of the Black Bands

What on earth is this with "Giovanni of the Black Bands"? He's far better known as "Giovanni delle Bande Nere" - a web count of pages in English shows 311 for "Giovanni delle Bande Nere", and 11 for "Giovanni of the Black Bands".

Look, I give up. You can do whatever the heck you want with the flipping Medici pages. I'm taking this one off my watch list, and you can take complete charge of adding material, writing new pages, etc, etc. I edit Wikipedia for fun, not aggravation, and I don't need this. There are plenty of other areas I'm interested in where there is plenty of work to do. Noel 01:57, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know whether to laugh or poke fun. If you're getting this upset, seeking psychiatric aid is what you should be doing, not editing Wikipedia articles. You've attacked my use of bynames in the past ("the Great," "the Elder," etc.) but you prefer "Giovanni Dalle Bande Nere," which is Lodovico's byname, to the translation "Giovanni of the Black Bands." This is an English article, not an Italian article. Adraeus 02:16, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So why did you change Pitti Palace to refer toPiazza de' Pitti, if English is to be preferred? I think my reason for preferring "Giovanni delle Bande Nere" is quite clearly given immediately above, if you bother to read it. And perhaps you meant Palazzo Pitti - or was that another of your mistakes? Noel 17:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Piazza de' Pitti" is a formal name just as "Giovanni de' Medici" is a formal name. "Pitti Palace" and "Palazzo Pitti" are both informal names just as "Giovanni of the Black Bands" is an informal name. Since we're using informal names to dumb down the content for less informed readers, there's no sense in being inconsistent. So no, your reason is weak and doesn't justify using Italian names when English names exists. See here. Adraeus 19:58, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism

Adraeus,

I consider my task to be finished if there is no one left on one side of the dispute. I have not read your essays that you pointed me to because I came into this for the sole purpose of dispute resolution. In order to accomplish this, it is important that I do not take either side. From my point of view, both sides had a valid argument, so I went on to not consider it vandalism on either part and took it as serious dispute resolution. Valid is not to say right. Frankly, I don't care who is right or wrong.

The sole purpose of my intervening was to resolve the dispute to a point where one side is not constantly reverting the other side's contributions and to get things to a point where contributions to the article can resume. That's it.

Atheism is, at its base, philosophy. Philosophy, by its nature, is argumentative and subjective. Wikipedia is not intended to create articles stating one point of view is philosophically correct. It is intended to be neutral. This means in a philosophical matter, all arguments must be represented fairly and impartially. From the title of one of your articles, I see that it calls Ayn Rand's theories heresy. Obviously this means that the authors views differ greatly from Ms. Rand's. Because of this, it is clear that the essay is not neutral. It takes a side. And anyone who recognizes Ayn Rand as a philosopher (which is a large population) would find that essay to be biased. Therefore, if your author's views are represented, Ms. Rand's contrary views MUST be respresented (even if they appear to some to be very, very wrong) in order to make it NPOV. In fact, someone trying to make the article NPOV would seek out these views and include them without passion or prejudice for the sole purpose of illustrating that there are other views and the one that the author is stating is not necessarily correct.

In politics, it is the same way. You can feel down to your bones that Republicans are absolutely correct on an issue. No doubt about it, every shred of scientific and ideological fact shows they are. But if you write an article about it and do not include the Democratic viewpoint without stating, implying or alluding to the fact that it is 100% wrong, the article is biased by definition.

I came to Talk:Atheism with the goal of assisting in facilitating compromise. Compromise is the only way that Wikipedia works. I do not consider myself to have been successful by any means. On the contrary, I am as disappointed as you are. But the fact remains that my goal was to relieve the conflict so that contributions to the article could continue. Without 2 or more sides to an argument, there is no conflict. The goal has been accomplished, but I am not happy about how it was accomplished. If User:20040302 et al. had left the discussion without resolution, I would not feel happy about it either. But it is what it is. I will not facilitate further argument. And without argument, I have no purpose in this matter. Therefore, I am stepping away and letting Wikipedia continue as was intended.

I am sorry that you feel disappointment with the outcome, but I hope you realize that I do, as well. The difference is that I am not in the dispute, so I will not get myself personally invested in the outcome.

Regardless, if you go back to the article and User:20040302 is twisting the views, I will be happy to come back and assist. But you cannot revert everything that does not conform to your views. It is just not how Wikipedia is meant to work. User:20040302 is respectful of my position and knows I mean well, so he will compromise if I place it in front of him. If you feel he is going overboard, I will be happy to reign things back, but you will have to be prepared to accept his views being included in the article to some extent.

Skyler1534 13:12, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Atheism is not a philosophy. From George Smith (1980), " 'Theism' and 'atheism' are descriptive terms: they specify the presence or absence of a belief in god. If a person is designated as a theist, this tells us that he believes in a god, not why he believes. If a person is designated as an atheist, this tells us that he does not believe in a god, not why he does not believe. "

I hope you don't honestly think that you can play judge without knowledge of the topic. If the U.S. legal system worked in such a manner, we'd have a monocracy, not a republic.

Moreover, you consistently refer to the state of the article as "my views." That is inaccurate. While I empathize with that view, it is not a subjective perspective; it is supported by etymology, epistemology, history, literature, and law. The root word of "atheism," "atheal," is from the Greek "without God." If you define "athiesm" in only its narrow form, atheism becomes a religion where the strong atheists are "True Atheists" whom claim the weak atheists are merely religious heretics, not "True Atheists." I reject that fallacy as I'm certain many, many, many other people do. Adraeus 22:45, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Feloniousmonk

Hello, quick note to point out that I've replied on User Talk:Jimbo Wales. I hadn't looked at Talk:Atheism until you mentioned it. I keep only a very small number of controversial pages on my watchlist, lest I go utterly crazy ;-)

Anyway, I've had a few discussions with FeloniousMonk, and figured he could use some clarification on wikipedia policies. I kept suggesting he might want to have a chat with Jimbo, but maybe he was shy or something. Following on from that I dropped a note on Jimbos' page asking if maybe Jimbo would like to contact FeloniousMonk then?

I'm kind of surprised at what followed. Poor Jimbo, he's going to have to read through all that stuff now. :-/

Ah well, also check my reply there, which summarises what I definately did not do.

Hope this explains some things!

Kim Bruning 22:21, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bureaucratship

Hello Adraeus - I just wanted to let you know that I'm running for bureaucratship, and I would like to ask for your vote, be it good or bad. I'm sending this message to a few users I respect who have interacted with me recently. Thanks, Andre (talk) 00:30, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your supportive vote. Unfortunately, I let you know about the nomination too late for it to count. I'll be running again, though, and I'll let you know earlier next time. Thanks again! Andre (talk) 15:28, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Endorsements page

Sorry to bother/spam you, but I thought you might be interested in weighing in on the state of the endorsements page on its talk page. I'm posting this message as Michael Snow apparently forgot to include you when lobbying for the survey.--FeloniousMonk 06:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism

I saw you called two recent edits to Atheism vandalism, and I'd like to point out that regardless of whether the editors were right or wrong in making the edit, a different POV isn't vandalism. It's just that - a different POV.

Try to stay friendly and civil whathever someone does or say, and don't call their edits vandalism as that might well inflame the argument even more.

Sincerely, [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 18:38, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism

I've started an unofficial attempt to mediate the dispute at Atheism. Please visit the talk page and created a bulleted summary of your view under the new header. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 18:55, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I've resolved to drop by and say hello when I see a new name. Good community building, or at least I hop so! Pleased to meet you. →Iñgólemo← (talk) 07:34, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

[edit] Dont vandalize my user page

[1]. Next time you go on ViP. If you had something useful to say, it could have gone on my talk page. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 15:12, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism? What!? The voters should you know you're an endorsed candidate! Adraeus 23:35, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Block

I've blocked you for breaking the Three Revert Rule on Atheism. You're welcome to edit after the block expires. Please do not break the 3RR again, and consider reading the Voluntary injuction I drafted on Talk:Atheism (at the top). [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 13:22, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sense & Sensitivity

This page seems to be editwar-torn not so much because of pov but of pedantry. — dab (ᛏ) 11:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

technically, you're not addressing me since you refer to some user named "Adreus"? Please, spell my username correctly when you address me. Sam Spade liked to write my username "Andreas" (a female name) in order to convey his ever-so-delightful opinion of me from his anti-atheist Christian fundamentalist POV. If your intent is not similar to that of Sam Spade's—to belittle—you will at least make effort to spell my username correctly as I do yours — Adraeus 14:32, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I rest my case ;o) dab (ᛏ) 12:38, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Through policy, Wikipedia has made itself a pedant's dreamworld. Claims of "pedantry", however, are guilty of the same ostentatiousness and inappropriateness attributed to the cause of the edit-war-torn state of the atheism article. That article was protected so many times due to Sam Spade and his cronies' pedantic, ignorant and arrogant POV pushing. To excuse POV pushing in favor of "pedantry" is reprehensible. Adraeus 13:11, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Darwin & Lincoln

Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were both born February 12th, 1809

---

Why is this important to you? Adraeus 00:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The summary on the talk page explains why (according to me) it should be left there (factual, a good time marker, good style, precedents abound, and 4000 google hits). Now, as to why I care, it's simple: Someone decided to take delete a true fact because of their POV that the mention ought to go, then others came in and virtually claimed ownership of the article. That's not wiki. Vincent 00:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Instead of promoting a statement that results in inferential conclusions—that is the nature of coincidences after all— why not write a statement that works as a factual "good time marker" without the inferential comparison of Darwin with Lincoln? I'm reasonably certain you are capable of so. Adraeus 00:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

At this point I'm pretty sure anything I add will get deleted if it mentions Lincoln :) Also, believe it or not, I don't think it's that relevant, which is why I like it included as an aside or in a trivia list. But, if anyone wants to write it up as an explicit time marker, power to them. Like I said, I'm open to compromise. Vincent 06:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

About your comment on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Ten Most Influential People of the Second_Millennium, you're serious about this? Only "loons" take me seriously? I'm somebody's "cronie"? You do realize that complex mechanisms were being developed at the time of Gutenberg: windmills, church clocks, etc. along with masonry and metal works. The Chinese had already invented printing but they used characters engraved on wooden blocks. Printing was an idea whose time had come. This often happens. Leibniz came up with the calculus independently of Newton. Wallace came up with natural selection independently of Darwin. Sometimes ideas appear before the world is ready for them, e.g. Leonardo (who's not in the Ten list, BTW) invented and flying machines way before supporting technologies were available. Of course, that's just a "loony" idea, but Gutenberg before Leonardo? Vincent 02:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Leonardo's "inventions" were merely designs which when implemented failed to work. Yes, Gutenberg before Leonardo. Gutenberg before Lincoln. By the way, Gutenberg invented MOVABLE TYPE, not printing. Get your facts straight. Your arguments are mere conjecture not based on objective facts. Adraeus 10:14, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please note I have requested arbitration over the Charles Darwin article. From you, I have requested an apology for the insult on the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Ten Most Influential People of the Second_Millennium. Vincent 04:50, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. Your request for arbritration was rejected.
2. Nothing I said merits an apology.

Adraeus 03:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course you owe me an apology. While I accept some flaring of tempers on the releant talk page, you went out of your way to another page to pursue the argument, and insulted me there. At that point, 196 years ago, I'd have been compelled to invite you to join me for a walk in the fields.Vincent 04:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't owe you anything. Adraeus 04:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Video game

Please do not revert the article video game to its preredirect state. It is not vandalism - the article has since been more correctly defined as redirecting to Computer and video games (or console game) ✏ OvenFresh☺ 16:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Computer and video games has further details. (And thanks for keeping an eye on it, by the way) — Slike | Talk | 06:09, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

[[User:Vfp15],] aka Vincent, has requested Arbitration of the Charles Darwin revert wars against you, User:Noisy and User:Aaarrrggh (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vfp15 and Charles Darwin. I've entered my opinions in the evidence section Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vfp15 and Charles Darwin/Evidence. gK ¿? 03:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Darwin article, page protection

I have protected the Darwin article until the edit war is resolved. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:41, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

I'm requesting for an arbitration against you (see WP:RfAr) for the Dawrin/Lincoln problem as Vincent's advocate. Actually, I don't know why I must send this message (ArbCom's requirements). As I see, gK has sent you a message for the other request, but that was not requested officially. --Neigel von Teighen 22:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Committee case opening

You have been named as a disputant in the recently opened Charles Darwin/Lincoln dispute case brought before the Arbitration Committee. You may wish to add evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin/Lincoln dispute/Evidence to support your case. -- Grunt   ҈  03:33, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

[edit] Vfp15 sockpuppet?

Adraeus, I really can't believe that you call me Vfp15's sockpuppet when we both worked in the Atheism page! I'm Vfp15's advocate, as I said, not his suckpuppet. Maybe, my bad english (I'm a native spanish speaker and I write english very good, but sometimes I make some terrible mistakes) confused you when I said that "I did the request by myself". I was talking about the request that led to the arbitration case currently open! Anyway, I forgive you and won't (nor can I) do anything against you. Have a nice day --Neigel von Teighen 17:13, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In English, you can't legitimately advocate a person. That's propaganda and sockpuppetish. Think politics. You can only legitimately advocate ideas. I'm surprised you endorse Vfp15's behavior though. Have you looked at the Charles Darwin history page yet? Adraeus 17:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I revised the article's history a lot. I know Vincent broke the 3RR (that's already past, I can't revert it), but there are also insulting edit summaries against him (not by you). I don't know if in english I advocate Vincent or not, but our the Association of Members' Advocates and its members are the advocates, maybe it's wrong. --Neigel von Teighen 18:30, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Association of Members' Advocates is quite simply a society of trolls—pseudo-lawyers for the defense-impaired. Adraeus 18:31, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you say such things. If you said a more civil critique, I would respect your opinion. But your almost insulting a very noble voluntary association that helps people that are defense-impaired, that's our goal. What if somewhen you need its help? Do you say this for the sole reason Sam Spade is a member of the AMA? Maybe we're pseudo-lawyers, I like to be one. But, we're not trolls as you say, --Neigel von Teighen 17:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do not confuse haughtiness with nobility. To think less of the person you "help" by describing them as "defense-impaired" certainly is not noble. Are your victims not responsible for their behavior? Are they incapable of defending themselves? How presumptuous of you to think so. Read Internet troll and Devil's Advocate. The Association of Members' Advocates—which I'm hesitant to abbreviate since there are far more respectable organizations using the same abbreviation such as the American Marketing Association, the American Medical Association and the American Management Association—promotes Devil's Advocacy. Members of the "AMA" are encouraged to run to the aid of the "defense-impaired" and help them fight the good fight regardless of reason. You even stated, "I'm only defending Vincent because I'm in the AMA! I never did any edit in Charles Darwin ..." You defend Vfp15 because you're an "AMA" member. That's hardly a good reason. Your lack of contributions to the Charles Darwin article demonstrates you are uninterested in contributing to the Charles Darwin article; therefore, your involvement in these issues is purely trollish being unwanted and unneeded. Be grateful that I've reserved the term "vandal" to those who deface articles instead of articles, discussions and issues.

• Self-proclaimed trolls often style themselves as Devil's Advocates or gadflies or culture jammers, challenging the dominant discourse and assumptions of the forum they are trolling in an attempt to subvert and introduce different ways of thinking.

• The term Devil's Advocate has come to mean anyone who argues a position that he or she does not necessarily believe in, simply for the sake of arguing; or to present a counterargument for a position he or she does believe in to another debater, for the purpose of testing the quality of the counterargument and identifying weaknesses in his or her own argument.

Adraeus 18:50, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First, I recognize that you're one of the best rhétores I've ever seen. I like debates (though I'm not good on them, unfortunately) and that's why I proposed one. You are defeating me!

I didn't any edit the article only because I knew it would be another problem for Vincent's position and for me. I knew, and was right, that someone would try to qualify me only because I'm Vincent's advocate and took that decission. Also, I didn't wanted to complicate things more than they are. I don't remember if I said it or not: I came through the RfC to the article. Adraeus, if you'd like, call me the Devil's Advocate, I like the 'title' (I'm not satanist).

You said that to defend Vincent only because I'm on the AMA it's not a good reason. You're right, I recognize. You can use this statements as evidence against me if you want.

Adraeus, you didn't answer me why you don't like the AMA (the Wikipedia one). It surprises me: you say I don't have good reasons, but bad as I say by myself. You don't have reasons: nor good nor bad. You're the perfect P.R! I'd like to learn from you how to do it, actually.

Yours! --Neigel von Teighen 20:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. By having not established previous interest in the Charles Darwin article and by assuming a defensive stance with Vfp15, you complicated the issue of Vfp15's behavior regardless of your intent to do otherwise. Understand that you are now referenced as an advocate for inclusion of the trivia despite your maintaining that your only interest in the article stems from your involvement with the Association of Members' Advocates as a pseudo-lawyer for Vfp15.

2. Unlike Sam Spade, I prefer to refrain from using irrelevant facts to build a case. Moreover, I highly doubt arbitration will produce a positive result favoring Vfp15 considering the evidence against him; thus, I see no need to play dirty. A legend surrounding the sgian dubh is that it is never to be drawn for trivial or mundane purposes and must taste blood before it can be re-sheathed even if the user must nick his own finger. I apply a similar idea to verbal battle.

3. I dislike the "AMA" because reason is not an inherent virtue of Devil's Advocates.

Adraeus 22:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reasons. Now that I understand what you say and that you were not trying to insult me nor attack me, but expressed half of your opinions about advocating.

If someone calls me 'advocate for the trivia', I don't care. I haven't done nothing wrong nor against Wikipedia policies, only said my opinions and offered my help to Vincent in the dispute resolution system.

A little off-topic opinion: I'd like to see a mediation (which I won't request) between Sam and you. I say it because many users and I see you in constant battling.

Any comment you have, send it to my talk, for discussion here it's not longer necessary; all it's very clear to me now: you wrote your comments in good faith. --Neigel von Teighen 17:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration diff links

Hi Adraeus,

Just to let you know that in your evidence on the Arbitration pages, it would better if you gave links to the specific diffs that you are discussing, rather than general links to the talk page. The format is discussed at the top of the page Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Charles_Darwin-Lincoln_dispute/Evidence, but it is really just a matter of looking at the history of your talk page, selecting the relevant diff, then copying the full page URL as an external link on the evidence page. -- Solipsist 08:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's a lot of work for the amount of free time I (don't) have. Adraeus 08:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Trouble is, the Arbitration committee has even more work to do in reviewing the case. They won't be reading the whole history of Talk:Charles Darwin and various user pages. I'd be impressed if they read the full list of User:Curps' diffs. -- Solipsist 08:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators most likely have more free time than I do. That's why they're volunteers. Adraeus 18:23, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Far from it. But I am absolutely unsurprised by your attitude here. Noel (talk) 19:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Committee case closed

The arbitration case concerning you has now closed. The Arbitration Committee has decided that you are to be banned for one month for personal attacks. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute for the full decision -- sannse (talk) 14:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(apologies for the misplacing of this on your user page -- sannse (talk) 17:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Welcome back!

Hola! --Mrfixter 19:39, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, I'm sick with a sore throat. Adraeus 03:31, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)