User talk:Timtrent/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for User:Timtrent (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 > 4 >>

Contents

Peer review

The hypothesis article about the WTC...sorry, too tired to link it, but you know what I mean...anyway, I don't disagree with the comments made by the guiled character. I see the title to be misleading. A hypothesis would have to have some basis in enough factual inconsistancies or material, to even be a hypothesis...but what the article does is give zero evidence more time than it deserves. I know you and others have worked hard on the article and I will read through it and made as objective opinions about how to maybe make it better on the peer review in a day or two...I am getting a new system and may be offline for the weekend, however. If it is any consolation, I will not vote in opposition to it being made a featured article, nor support anyone attempting to railroad it from attaining that status.--MONGO 09:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Friendly reminder

Don't bite the newbies. Think about what your conversation is likely to accomplish, and consider taking a step back. Nothing is gained by responding in kind, satisfying as it is. Tom Harrison Talk 23:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your point. I didn't think I was coming even close to biting anyone, though. I suppose you may be referring to my objection to beimng addressed with "look pal", but I do object to that. My style has always been to respond with infinite patience and politeness and to seek to educate. I will take several steps back. I had already decided to ignore the gentleman after my post in the article talk page. Don Quixote does not suit me! I think we need to get the article to Peer Review very soon indeed, though. Fiddle Faddle 23:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks; good luck with the peer review. Tom Harrison Talk 23:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I am hoping to persuade someone who has been fully involved to take it to peer review. I've always been looking at it as "an article" not as a "magnum opus", and I think the responsiblity of submitting it (perhaps the glory?) should go to an editor whos interest is the topic :) Fiddle Faddle 00:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
What the...? Fiddle Faddle is one of the most kindful and peaceful persons I've ever met on Wikipedia. I sometimes wish I could have his friendly, patient, reasonable approach as he does.
Tom's remark can't refer to the conversation with User:Beguiled, where Fiddle Faddle showed his great care and explained everything to a newbie, not being distracted much by Beguiled wrong doings, staying friendly,(much more friendly than others involved including me), can it? It can't be done to protect User:Beguiled making wrong claims and following deletionists' path (the path which Tom Harrison often follows with other fellow editors), can it?
Then what is this comment doing here? SalvNaut 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Tom makes a valid point. One does not always interpret one's own words as others see them. He has looked at what I have written and drawn a conclusion. That's perfectly fine. Thank you for your support. He is supportive too, you know. Fiddle Faddle 23:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course, "Don't bite the newbies" is always a valid point. But when I see something that looks "unbalanced", I then react. I think that Tom won't mind my snappy comment, we both often put efforts to balance each others comments (we even had a poetry contest[1] once, which Tom probably won - enough on his side :) SalvNaut 00:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It's generous of you to say so. I thought your opening it up with pattern poetry was great. We'll have to do it again sometime. Tom Harrison Talk 00:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, your gambit was great too. Concept was my only weapon, as the language could be not. If inspiration comes it might happen again. Fiddle Faddle, I'm sure you would be a fair judge, or... a dangerous contestant? SalvNaut 01:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
You should use haiku;
Those will show what skill you have!
Dangerous am I

Fiddle Faddle 16:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Molten metal and WP:BALLS

Dear Fiddle Faddle. You brought up WP:BALLS with regard to CD hypothesis when talking with MONGO. That drove me to asking you a question, and I would appreciate your response. This is not meant to be a rant. This is a polite question, I'm simply curious.

The question is about Molten Metal. Since you do not endorse CD hypothesis, and since you've read the article, you must somehow "get over" some information, explain it to yourselves, or marginilize it, or...? In appropriate section of CD hypothesis article you can find references to numerous reports of molten metal in the rubble of WTC (more of them here). There is a thermal study that showed 1000K temperatures in the rubble 5 days after the attacks. Secondly, on this video you can see molten substance sparkling in a very disturbing fashion, producing white plume and really hot molten substance, all this moments before collapse (comparison with thermite reaction?). I wonder what is your opinion on those facts, how you deal with them, overcome them. Just what you think about it when fitting this into non-CD explanation and WP:BALLS :) view on this topic. Of course, similiar questions could be asked on many other topics, like the collapse style of WTC1,2,7 (which is a mystery to me) or other "conspiracial" topics, but in those cases I usually can think of a response that some CT sceptic would probably made. I this particular case, which I find so inconsistent with non-CD explanation, I cannot (debunking attempts convinced me even more on how important this issue is), and that's why I ask.

Thanks for any feedback and for your work on the article. SalvNaut 15:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I see no rant. In the main I am using gut instinct. That's ok because I am not a professional researcher and am not accountable. However it would be wrong if I used my disbelief of the various demolitionists as a place to stand when editing the article.
One of the issues with temperature levels in the various locations is the bewildering combination of organics, inorganics that are combustible in certain circumstances, catalysts, oxidising agents and general random "stuff" which mean that we can never reproduce the conditions in a laboratory, or even get close to them. Add a medical oxygen cylinder to the mix in a first aid room, for example, and the whole reaction set becomes unpredictable in the extreme. Boil aviation fuel and the fire has different characteristics from "room temperature". Notice I am declaring total ignorance of these phenomena. I am simply stating my uncertainty.
Not that I am suggesting there was, for example, magnesium, present, but, many years ago, the KDF-9 computer had a magnesium disk of substantial size. At my university this was in a CO2 protected room. But, had the Mg ignited and the CO2 been released it would have burnt hotter (or perhaps just faster) than in air. This amused us. My point in mentioning this is that circumstances can combine in "interesting" ways to produce results that are predictable but not previously anticipated.
So I base my gut instinct on the fact that I cannot believe that anyone could have co-ordinated this thing. That does not mean it did not happen. That means that I cannot believe it. It doesn't mean I am ignoring observations, it means that I have not the skill to analyse the observations. In the absence of that skill my belief holds sway. I believe it is total balls, and so I edit according to the cited facts.
Does that help you understand where I am coming from? Did I even answer your questions? Fiddle Faddle 15:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, of course it helps and you've answered exactly to what I was asking of. (Couldn resist to comment, though - I reason that this "phenomena" had to be very extensive to result with such temperatures days after and with sparkling metal. Among all the phenomenas, I find explosives very probable :) ) SalvNaut 16:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Always remember that the most surprising things are explosive in the right circumstances, and that the term "explosive" covers everythkng from slow burn items like gunpowder to rather faster things like nuclear explosives. Flour is explosive in the right circumstances and caused the demolition of many flour mills. My point? That we will never know. After all, who knows what was stored on floor 27 and what happens when it combined with the stuff on floor 15? Fiddle Faddle 16:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Molten metal isn't the only reason I tend towards CD explanation. CIA's dirty lanundry, money-business-politcs-intelligence mixture and motive-circumstances are among main others. (also the style of official investigation and gov. response to mistakes? made allowing such a blow to intelligence, military, etc.) Conspiracies are a fact. Black-ops do happen around the world (Moscow bombings which launched war in Chechenya are most possibly similiar ones). That's where I'm coming from (not Russia of course :)... although it might be a factor that I live more to the East in postcommunist country.. hmmm). SalvNaut 16:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Our background has a huge influence on our outlook. The truly great thing is that we may each believe what we will, yet we can co-operate to edit an article that is NPOV. Governments are crazy as are intelligence services. Don't get me started on the alleged plot to use TATP to take airliners out of the sky in the summer. For me that is a total fabrication of reality precisely because this explosive is almost impossible to manufactue in flight. But we will never know the truth there, either. Fiddle Faddle 16:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion on TATP plot (which I agree with) made me focus on your statement: "So I base my gut instinct on the fact that I cannot believe that anyone could have co-ordinated this thing." I wouldn't underestimate human "capabilities". Given good things which people are able to organize (like spacetravel, huge constructions...linux:) I wouldn't exclude bad ones of similiar breadth... And, as Seabhcan once pointed out, USA tends to bring things to the extreme... SalvNaut 17:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
It comes down to scale, really. It does not take much effort to find a group of "likely suspects" and create a TATP alleged plot for them. To be fair pretty much any fool could also crash a plane into a building. But, for me, the similarity ends there because the resopurcing difficulty starts there. It takes huge resources to demolish a building, and this demolished more than one. Those resources have to be deployed over time, and they are hard to conceal. They require delivery of substantial quantities of stuff, and co-ordinated effort to distribute to the right floor (unlike Mission Impossible where everything is so light a petite woman can do it). And it has to go "bang" at the right time. Fiddle Faddle 17:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it would take huge ppl resources (other resources, I assume, are easily obtainable to certain intell./milit. groups). Good access to the buildings (with security clearance) as for a construction team for the time of 1,2 months should suffice, imho. Possibilities of such operation were described here and there... Well, we could be discussing like this for a loong time... I suppose that we agree on this one thing: if you were to decide, you would support a new, independent investigation, right? SalvNaut 20:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Were a genuinely impartial fresh investigation to be possible I would support it. However I would also have to declare that I would agree with its findings. This is very similar to the recent new report on the death of Diana and el Fayed, though. One's heart will always rule one's head. Fiddle Faddle 20:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Good work on CD

Hi Tim, just a quick note of thanks for all your work on the CD article. I've been having a hard time keeping up with the pace of changes, but I'll do my best to pull my weight from now on.--Thomas Basboll 19:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm really just acting as "guide and co-ordinator". I've often said that my skill in this article is not with the content, but with the contents. I've used dfferent words, of course. :) I find the hypothesis itslef unutterably silly and bizarre. That means I am more than usually determined to help ensure we have a top quality article about it :).
The work and the credit for it is really down to those like you who edit the content with delvings through the research. I'm more like a sheepdog, rounding up the strays. Fiddle Faddle 19:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

King George V playing Fields

Help sorry!I added the start of a Cornwall list of playing field I didn't understand how to use the template so copied one from Wiltshire list now I can't add the multimap references which are...Grid ref:SX039732 Web Address: www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?lat=50.5258&lon=-4.767&scale=10000&icon=x

Teapotgeorge 13:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Always best to copy when in doubt - I do the same myself. If impossible to add map refs, I suggest just to add that to the project todo list, then anyone can have a go when they have time. I think the mapping sofwtare went awry a couple of months ago. Glad you have joined in - it was getting too much for me alone Fiddle Faddle 13:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Solved it :) The trick is to copy the 25 and the nbsps as well :) Fiddle Faddle 13:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I thought that was the trick too! but it just results in a "postcode not found" error message on Multi map's page. Teapotgeorge 14:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You could ask User:RHaworth who does a lot of mapping things. He's a all roght guy and understand it totally. Fiddle Faddle 14:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much...it WAS the number of digits wot did it! I've been plastering the bedroom wall at the same time so have been distracted too!!! Teapotgeorge 18:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I plan to

I do plan to watch for beguiled's contributions on the 9/11 conspiracy related articles. I happen to think that he left after the SPA and sock questioning, and his response with the sock/sack issue makes me slightly suspicious of him intentionally playing dumb. I also may make some suggestions for improvement on the article in question, though it would be difficult to make very specific suggestions as the article is quite long and difficult to critique. So, my suggestions may end up being slightly vague. --Wildnox(talk) 21:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

I think you deserve this. Tyrenius 01:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar
For upholding wiki standards of editing and behaviour even in difficult circumstances. Tyrenius 01:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's funny. Until receiving one I thought they were an unusual oddity, yet I am moved by this, old and ugly as I am :). Thank you. This has now prompted me to look out for worthwhile behaviour in others and to think about giving one or two. Fiddle Faddle 07:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto myself. They're on WP:BARN. Keep up the good work! Tyrenius 08:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I shall copy this to my user page :) Fiddle Faddle 16:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Controlled demolition

I'm troubled by the edit summary that accompanied your reversion. Were you asking a question or casting an aspersion with that edit summary? In any regard, my explanation can be found at Gazpacho's talk page. I'll be happy to rehash it again here or in the article's talk page, but, since my actions were not content related, I felt the affected user's talk page was the right place for it to go. --Ssbohio 01:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me about this error that I made. I have written on the talk page. Sorry! -- Where 04:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Accidents happen in the best regulated families :) Fiddle Faddle 09:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I was not casting aspersions at all. Edit summaries have a reasonably long, but finite, space to summarise what one has done. I was stating that your second reversion was ill explained. I stand by that phrase and made it unemotionally because I perceived that you had reverted in each case without regard to the content, and had simply looked at process, relying on VP as an infallible guide. I will look at the other editor's talk page, but wanted to reply to you without being influenced by that first. Fiddle Faddle 09:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Now I have read your explanation. I see it as both reasonable and uneasonable in equal measure. The other editor made a misassumption that VP was a bot. I think you may then have made a misassumption that s/he was acting in some way that was malicious, or unwise, or without regard to content (or something else) and thus made your own reversion without regard to content. Vandals do make multiple edits, but have seldom made sensible edits. Errors happen when one is working to protect Wikipedia. I'm sorry my edit summary troubled you. Fiddle Faddle 09:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
To take you through my thought process: I saw the reverted bot edit summary for a reversion by Gazpacho that restored deletions originally made by Gazpacho. This led me to consider that either the edit summary was incorrect due to a misunderstanding of VP or that the edit summary was incorrect as a means of supporting the redeletion of the content. Assuming good faith, I reverted the edit as being likely mistaken based on its edit summary, but, either way, my course of action would have been the same. I don't necessarily see it as unreasonable, however. I left an edit summary explaining that Where was not a bot. When the deletion was restored again (within minutes), it raised a related but distinct issue. My concern at that point was not whether the content should be deleted, but that, if deleted content was restored to the article (twice), consensus-building was called for to support its deletion. Nonetheless, I was unwilling to make a third reversion of the content, but I felt confident that Gazpacho would be similarly constrained. The content dispute could then be discussed & resolved before Gazpacho moved forward with the deletion. While I was surprised & somewhat dismayed at your redeletion, I can also see that it's a case of us all doing what we think is "right." Like an admin protecting the wrong version of an article, whether the deleted material was restored or removed, someone would think it was the wrong thing to do. In general, my preference (& my editing history) is one of harmonious edits rather than edit warring. In this case, however, I felt a second reversion was warranted to restore content deleted without apparent consensus or discussion, based on the principle that included content should remain so unless consensus warrants removal. To be clear, my involvement was not content-based, but rather based in my belief that process is important. At no time did I see vandalism in anyone's actions, but I felt that the removed content should be restored until its removal could be discussed. I know this is a bit long-winded, but I wanted to take the time to demonstrate to you that my actions were policy based and not intended to take one side or another in the content dispute. --Ssbohio 04:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I never thought for one moment that your actions were to dowith any content dispute, nor that any of the actions were. I thought it simply to do woth process. I suspect you and I simply differ over process. My only thoughts were to stop the revert/re-revert that I felt was likely if another editor did not step in. The article itself can cause heated feelings, and it was thus necessary to seek to both restore the pre-reversion state (pending any discussion, which there has not been) and to seek to bring the processes to a halt. In doing this, with no malice whatsoever, I unwittingly upset you.
The difference in process? When I revert what I believe may be vandalism I always look at the content I am reverting. I make mistakes, too. I do not say that my way is better, it simply give me more confidence. We have all learnt something from this. Fiddle Faddle 07:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

9/11 Templates

I am discussing it on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. Please join in. It seems ridiculous to have MULTIPLE 9/11 CT templates on single pages. Do you not see that? The old one should be deleted if we are now creating a new one. bov 21:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use words such as "Do you not see that?" and also capital letters because they imply a patronising tone. Whether it seems ridiculous or not to you the two templates serve different functions and do not overlap. Fiddle Faddle 21:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: List of fictional Jewish LGBT characters

An editor has nominated the article List of fictional Jewish LGBT characters for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional Jewish LGBT characters. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article List of fictional Jewish LGBT characters during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 15:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Claremont School of Theology
Mean World Syndrome
Common Dreams NewsCenter
Morgan Reynolds
TeachScheme!
Religion in Denmark
Great Cornard Upper School
The Flight that Fought Back
Giulietto Chiesa
Brenda Howard
Crafty
Clementi Primary School
St. Nicholas Church of England Primary School
Handcar
Denbigh Community Primary School
Isaac Klein
HMS Brilliant (F90)
Mersey Flat
David Schippers
Cleanup
Landing Platform, Helicopter
Bernard Tapie
Lyndale Primary School
Merge
Brigantine
Fifth grade
Brig
Add Sources
David and Jonathan
List of proven conspiracies
Michael Ruppert
Wikify
Shaker High School
Luscious Jackson
Kelston Boys' High School
Expand
Education in Africa
A1 (band)
Tourism in China

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 19:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"Irrelevant"

I am sorry that you took offence. An edit summary doesn't give space for extensive disquisition on one's reasons for such edit. However, the "see also" reference that you inserted in the article has to do with a clean different subject.Masalai 14:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there are plenty of in-text blue links to subjects as to which your matter is not irrelevant. This article has to do with a minor surgical alternative to circumcision. Anyone who is interested in such matters is not going to be looking for them in this article; indeed, they are likely to have been led to this article from a more general article which will also lead them to your subject. Masalai 14:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Beguiled

I think you're better off just ignoring him. It doesn't look like he edits often enough to be of any real concern, IMHO. I do agree that the work you and Thomas have done on that article have greatly improved it....I don't know if it can become an FA, but only time will tell. The Retreat of glaciers since 1850 failed it's first attempt at FA, but was later passed and made it to the mainpage too. I found the comments that one gets from peer review to be less constructive overall than those found at the FAC pages...so maybe when you feel comfortable that it is stable enough, you can proceed with that next step. I've kind of changed my viewpoint on the issue, and though still a bit troubled by the article title, I see that the improvements there have been substantial.--MONGO 23:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. However I also think it is time he "put his money where his mouth is", so to speak :) It's an interesting username. All sorts of connotations Fiddle Faddle 23:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Trying to contact another editor

User:Cazedessus Yes, I tried to contact user Cazedessus. He claims to know a lot about Kit Carson. While he ended up disrupting the article because the article didn't coincide with his POV, he did in fact have quite a lot of good things to say in terms of understanding background facts of Carsons life. I think "Caz" left the stage just as I joined, in December. He left word that if anyone wanted to contact him, he could be contacted, and I have been trying to understand if he left an address or not. I will try to link you to his user and talk page. My postings are there. I don't know what ERB.dom is, if that is some sort of address. Thanks.Richiar 03:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify my communication a little more precisely, I believe "ERB" stands for "Edgar Rice Buroughs". This is easily deduced from the first paragraph of Cazedessus' user page.
Then he makes the statement: "Alas, so far, the unknown board of editors will not make the distinction between legend and legacy. If there is anyone reading this who supports my insistence that wiki not confuse word definitions like legend and legacy, please contact me. -Caz Ed. & Pub, Pulpdom, Son of ERB-dom".
I don't know how to decipher this, and I don't know if he has an email. Thanks. Richiar 03:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I finally figured it out: I found the email link in the toolbox. Caz never set up his email.I think the problems is solved. Thanks.Richiar 04:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Glad you solved it Fiddle Faddle 07:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:The "someone's sock" you reverted on Hoffman

That was my assumption when I rolled the edit back, but I didn't see anything to be gained by saying anything. Bov's noted it now but I think it was a little in the gray area. To be honest those topics are so polarizing that's it's discouraging. New users showing up that are obvious socks, overheated rhetoric...oh well. I used to like editing here....now I'm reluclant to spent what little free time I have arguing. Maybe it's time for a break anyway. RxS 04:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The best way to find an impartial and experienced editor

{{helpme}}

I am in need of en experienced and impartial editor to help with closing a discussion intended to reach a consensus here. The discussion is scheduled to close in just over 4 days time.

My concern is to find such an editor, who need not be an admin, who has not edited articles on the 9/11 incidents and has no real interest in such articles, nor in any disputes between official and unofficial versions of events, and one who has the strength of character to close the discussion effectively and with rationale. But which is the right place to request it? The Village Pump is an obvious candidate, but how does one "ensure" that one's volunteer has the attributes required? Fiddle Faddle 09:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

From experience, I find that such requests are often made on the admin's noticeboard, whether that's an appropriate place or not (I agree with you, the Village Pump would probably make more sense). For an editorial decision like the content of a template (that is, a decision that can be enacted and/or reverted by editors), consider that you don't necessarily need the debate to be closed at all. Even someone biased (although I agree it would be better to find someone neutral) could make the relevant change determined by consensus with an edit summary like 'per consensus on Talk page; see talk', and then many users (if they agreed there was consensus) wouldn't revert even if they disagreed with the change. If the consensus were strong enough, changing the page without consensus might even be seen as disruption if reported (at which point the administrator taking it from there would effectively have closed the discussion). If you want someone to place a nice closebox around the debate, consider whether that's really necessary, or whether just leaving it open is likely to produce better results. Hope that helps! --ais523 09:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Good thoughts. Probably, with the heat in this discussion, and the politicakl nature of the partoes involved, we will need a pretty box around the outcome. I am open to persuasion either way. Fiddle Faddle 09:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

re: it may be helpful indeed

yes, thank you, I've completely ignored that section… it's because I'm extremely fed up with the terminology we all use, a bit upset to be honest, surly didn’t intend to patronize. General grunting, not pointed at anyone but at the "system", so to say. It really helps when you suddenly feel the need to turn into vandal, a scream of a sort. I was thinking about taking a little break from all this… Thanks again. Lovelight 21:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the whole world is a conspiracy. Have fun with it. Lovelight 00:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It's called dialogue, not sniping… I'm really striving to ease this on everyone, not sure why you need to take everything so personally? For example, take a look at my talk page, one could argue it was sniped more than one time:). But I won't do that, why would I? We are having dispute, I understand that I can react inappropriately and I'm shocked by some of my reactions but we are beating around the shrub here. We are constantly wasting time, once I've spend a whole month arguing about obvious things. I had to walk five hundred miles to contribute to 911 article with very small, yet factually accurate edit, crystal clear issue. It's entropy for sure, and if you play ping-pong with all the same people… well, it's boring. If this would be with different editors it would be ok, heck, if different editors would work on 911 related articles I wouldn’t even be there, I'd rather be writing new ones. If you consider my last remark to be inappropriate, please, accept my apology. Lovelight 10:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether dialogue or sniping, I felt it was not appropriate, and I accept your apology Fiddle Faddle 11:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that you called for broader consensus, which is good, however, please keep in mind that current subject(s) of the template are also disputed (being mutually exclusive) and that protection doesn't endorse the current version. If you would kindly note this in your preface… thx. Lovelight 18:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wholly unnecessary in my view. Please look at the head of the template itself where it states it with the normal clarity and the words That will please neither set of opinions, it is always protected in the "wrong version" after allin the preamble. We do not have to spoon feed everyone. We need a far broader consensus than the very narrow group of people who have expressed strong opinions in one direction or another. Fiddle Faddle 19:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
There was a third option to this; it was about Control Demolition Hypothesis, which is/was more than npov title. After all Arthur did point that cd template would be a worthy cause. I'm not sure how to point this out at this particular stage, and that's a bit of a shame. Well, never mind. As for that remark, my mishap, you did point it out (and I've misplaced the data), and if you say that it's clear, I'll take your word on it. Lovelight 20:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
If there is a third option, and I do not believe that there is, then I see no issue with your stating it clearly in the preamble and making an impartial post on talk pages of those who have stated their opinion, notifying them that the option has been presented and inviting them to inspect and determine if their opinion remains valid. It must be impartial or you will be accused of spamming. Fiddle Faddle 21:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration?

How are we to proceed? Lovelight 02:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Please be more precise? Fiddle Faddle 11:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking about our template (what else?), you still have your little conspiracy up and running and I don't like it one bit, therefore I'd like to hear what's our next step… guess it's arbitration. Lovelight 13:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
First, I do not "have" any form of conspiracy doing anything. Second, I object to your tone most strongly and ask you to consider your words most carefully. Third, the next step is whatever the consensus of the Wikipedia community reaches. I do not own any articles here. I am receiving your words as a personal attack which is not only something I do not care for, but is against policy.
You will do whatever you wish. If you feel some form of arbitration is required then seek it. In any case, please remind yourself what good community citizenry is about and stay within the bounds of it.
Remember that I have no fight with you or with anyone. I am here simply because of the articles I choose to edit, and to seek to edit those on the most responsible manner of which I am capable. Presumably you are here for the same reason. Fiddle Faddle 14:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Lovely lecture, to be honest I'm practicing remarkable resilience and politeness in last few months. Not to say that the whole community is all trigger happy, itchy, scratchy and all that. Decider, divider, polarization, manipulation… As you may have notice we are, all of us, a bit fed up with terminology; terror, terrorism, fear, fascism… blah, blah, blah… Well there is always neutral point of view, yet in this particular case we fail to recognize it? We would rather impose an opinion than serve as knowledge database? Well, I don't appreciate your tone either; I'll back out of this discussion, have it your way. You know 911 may appear, but it is not! a hegemony (of sorrow). Lovelight 14:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration? Sign me up, too. I'm sick of that locked template. bov 04:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The arbitration process is very simple. If you feel strongly about it then please get it started. Do note that the fact that you are sick of something does not mean it is invalid, it simply means that you hold one view. You were invited so many times to build a consensus over this, the invitation was not strictly necessary because this is wikipedia and we live by consensus, but it was made because you hold a strong view. The awkward thing about a consensus is that we may not agree with it when it is forthcoming. If that happens we may work correctly to build a new consensus, but we may not trample over the consensus view inthe intervening period.
I am not sure that the arbitration process is the correct place to go yet, though. Have you looked at it and made sure that you have exhausted all the avenues you are asked to exhaust before seeking arbitration? And what exactly is the matter you will put to arbitration? I have no need of an answer, but you need to be clear before starting the process. Fiddle Faddle 07:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Commendation

Hello, sorry to add junk to your talk page but I just wanted to show a bit of my appreciation for the way I've seen you handle aggressive and inflammatory wiki-trolls, especially in articles related to the 911 conspiracy movement. I see you have the original barnstar - it was well earned. Keep up the good work! --68.56.0.116 21:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I cling to the view that one man's troll is another man's staunch supporter. In general the people with the most potential to upset us hold their views very close to their hearts and also to the surface. They believe in their cause. They simply fail to see that a cause has no place in articles. I'm sure I also allow some personal views to creep in, but I try very hard to maintain politeness and to see the good in everyone, even if I disagree with them completely. Fiddle Faddle 21:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wang

The problem with that subsection is that it was *already* an orphan, in the old section too. I'll integrate it back where it's a bit more pertinent. --Joy [shallot] 12:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Good luck. Were you at wang, too? Fiddle Faddle 19:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Nah, I just stumbled in and added some information I found elsewhere. --Joy [shallot]

SmackBot

Hi Tim, yes you're right, but only with the "fact" and "not verified" templetes, all the others are up to date. The categories also say "since" a given date, and may include before that date. "Fact" is now virtually done. Discussion at Template talk:fact and on my talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 15:06 12 February 2007 (GMT).

From user:72.88.119.42

Timtrent, I am not a vandal and I have no intent in defacing wikipedia articles. I have been using wikipedia for a long time to get very useful information and have made a few edits all of which nobody has criticized. You sent me a message saying that I vandalized Foreskin restoration and various other articles (which were related to the Foreskin restoration). I'll admit that removing the picture for foreskin restoration may have not been necessary, but the other articles I edited were very, well pushing it. You also said I "created work for other people by your willful removal of valid pictures". Just because you said they were valid doesn't mean they are valid. I didn't make an attempt to remove pictures from the penis article, because I realized that they were educational, although showing a penis in its erect state is questionable. But pierced penis piercing?!? That was not necessary, especially ejaculation which was the worst. If it was vandalism I would have messed up the article. I was acting in good faith (Wikipedia:Assume good faith). I mean how does vandalizing wikipedia benefit me? It is the best site I have ever been to and for you to accuse me of vandalizing it is insulting. When clicked on one of the picture has a caption under it that said it was a picture he had taken of himself! Un-editing my edits only make things worse. I mean how does this sound? "Wikipedia the free porn site that only a few people can edit". By the way it is spelled willful, not wilful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.88.119.42 (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not censored. All of your edits were the removal of penis pictures. That looks to me very much like a vandal on a mission. One need not assume good faith in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If you disagree with my view please ask an admin to review it. Fiddle Faddle 00:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

From user:72.88.119.42

Do you even know the real definition of the word "vandal"? Vandal on a mission? I've never heard such a ridiculous term. If I were a vandal on a mission I would mess up random articles from different IP addresses. Do you listen? I said before If I was a vandal I would have messed up articles as well. There goes your overwhelming evidence. And if I were a vandal I would not waste my time arguing with you. Ok, ok, I get it you can stop giving me links to the article on what wikipedia is not. If I disagree I should have an administrator review it? What if the press found out about it and it in the headline: "Wikipedia the free porn site where only some may edit? I'm not threatening, but what if somebody else does that?--72.88.119.42 00:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandals do all sorts of things here. Your edits were vandalism in my opinion, not in yours. Have an admin review my actions. Both you and I are open to community scrutiny, so, if you are certain you are innocent of the charge of vandalism, ask for a review. I'm perfectly confident in my actions.
From my perspective this subject is now closed. You may post a reply if you wish, but I have no interest in replying to you further. Fiddle Faddle 13:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

From user:72.88.119.42

Timtrent, I am not a vandal and I have no intent in defacing wikipedia articles. I have been using wikipedia for a long time to get very useful information and have made a few edits all of which nobody has criticized. You sent me a message saying that I vandalized Foreskin restoration and various other articles (which were related to the Foreskin restoration). I'll admit that removing the picture for foreskin restoration may have not been necessary, but the other articles I edited were very, well pushing it. You also said I "created work for other people by your willful removal of valid pictures". Just because you said they were valid doesn't mean they are valid. I didn't make an attempt to remove pictures from the penis article, because I realized that they were educational, although showing a penis in its erect state is questionable. But pierced penis piercing?!? That was not necessary, especially ejaculation which was the worst. If it was vandalism I would have messed up the article. I was acting in good faith (Wikipedia:Assume good faith). I mean how does vandalizing wikipedia benefit me? It is the best site I have ever been to and for you to accuse me of vandalizing it is insulting. When clicked on one of the picture has a caption under it that said it was a picture he had taken of himself! Un-editing my edits only make things worse. I mean how does this sound? "Wikipedia the free porn site that only a few people can edit". By the way it is spelled willful, not wilful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.88.119.42 (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not censored. All of your edits were the removal of penis pictures. That looks to me very much like a vandal on a mission. One need not assume good faith in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If you disagree with my view please ask an admin to review it. Fiddle Faddle 00:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

From user:72.88.119.42

Do you even know the real definition of the word "vandal"? Vandal on a mission? I've never heard such a ridiculous term. If I were a vandal on a mission I would mess up random articles from different IP addresses. Do you listen? I said before If I was a vandal I would have messed up articles as well. There goes your overwhelming evidence. And if I were a vandal I would not waste my time arguing with you. Ok, ok, I get it you can stop giving me links to the article on what wikipedia is not. If I disagree I should have an administrator review it? What if the press found out about it and it in the headline: "Wikipedia the free porn site where only some may edit? I'm not threatening, but what if somebody else does that?--72.88.119.42 00:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandals do all sorts of things here. Your edits were vandalism in my opinion, not in yours. Have an admin review my actions. Both you and I are open to community scrutiny, so, if you are certain you are innocent of the charge of vandalism, ask for a review. I'm perfectly confident in my actions.
From my perspective this subject is now closed. You may post a reply if you wish, but I have no interest in replying to you further. Fiddle Faddle 13:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/i/m/User_talk%7ETimtrent_Archive_4_24ee.html"