User talk:B

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a user talk page at the English Wikipedia, originally located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:B. If you are reading it at any other location, it is unmonitored and may be out of date or otherwise invalid. Comments left here have not been verified and should not be deemed to be reliable.

Because of privacy concerns, I no longer maintain separate archive pages. One of the worst policy decisions Wikipedia has made is to allow user and user talk edits to be indexed by search engines. This creates a space that is largely unmonitored for libel and nonsense, but is nonetheless the top g-hit for any relevant search term. For previous comments on my talk page, see 2007 Dec 30, 2008 Jan 21, 2008 Feb 26, 2008 Apr 20, 2008 May 10, or the old archives.

Please note that I am User:B on meta, but not on most other projects. As of May 2008, there are users named User:B on 62 projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, but only seven of them are linked to my account. On Commons, where another user has had the B moniker since long before I claimed it here, I contribute as User:UserB and I may occasionally edit from UserB locally as an unintended consequence of unified login.

Contents

[edit] Not sure what you mean

I'm choosing to stay out of the drama with Cla68 (talk · contribs). But you threw my name about here, and I'm not sure what you meant? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I went and looked for it and this is what I was referring to. You are saying that everyone you disagree with — Christians, homeopaths, and racists — are all tied together. This attitude is really causing a problem because it leads to an us vs them mentality. In reality, you and I probably agree 110% on homeopathy and racism. When I am sick, I don't want distilled plant roots, bug excrement, or magic foot pads — I want a doctor. And I don't care if that doctor is Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, black, white, male, female, young, or old as long as he or she knows what he or she is doing with regards to medicine. You said it before when we were dealing with the "save the south" user that regardless of our disagreements, when you are right, I will vigorously defend you and that's true. It's probably also true of most non-SPA Wikipedians - you will agree on some things and disagree on others - and the "going after" anyone that in some way offends the ID project just isn't very helpful. That's all I was trying to say. --B (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm in full agreement with you on bug excrement. I do distinguish between Creationists and Christians, I want that clear to anyone reading any diff by me. I just don't think that religion of any sort should run any government. I'm even annoyed by the state of Israel, of which I am technically a citizen (though I have never taken up the Law of Return), for their making religion a part of the government. What I am saying is that anti-science denialism of any sort are all the same. From a personal standpoint, I do not lump everyone who disagrees with me together, only if they disagree with me on all points. For example, although I don't agree with you across the board, you have my full and absolute respect because of your anti-racism stand, which appears more absolute than mine. So, I don't lump everyone together. if I need to learn one lesson from my conversations with you is that I should be more patient in determining if there is common ground. We seem to have it on magic potions and racism! So if I shouldn't lump everyone together, please don't lump me with anti-Christians or anti-religion of any sort. I have strong religious beliefs, I just prefer that they be kept to myself. I promise to reduce the "lumping" of POV's together. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but a huge part of the problem in the area is the assumption of Young Earth Creationists that either all Christians believe as they do, or to define "real" Christians as only fellow Young Earth Creationists. OrangeMarlin was not referring to Christians or even Creationists now that I see the quote; he was referring to YEC. And YEC are definitely a tiny WP:FRINGE group, who frequently campaign against science. Just a point of clarification.--Filll (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is opposed to science. Again, that's putting words into someone's mouth. Even "true" YECers (the earth is 6K years old) are not opposed to science. I've heard (don't know how true this is) that the notion that the earth was created 6000 years ago actually came from people mocking the Bible and saying "do the math and you get a 6000-year-old earth - ha ha ha". In reality, there are no dates in the first part of Genesis, so for all we know/care, Adam and Eve could have been chilling out in the garden of Eden for billions of years before trying to make apple pie. The point of Genesis is that at some point, God made the family through whom He would eventually bring forth the nation of Israel, and, in Christian beliefs, His Son into the world for our salvation - the exact timeline is immaterial and is outside the scope of what Moses was trying to get across. --B (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, many YEC and other extremists are against science, or want to redefine science to suit themselves etc, or use "science" or what they define as science as a tool for proselytizing or even generating hatred for others of other beliefs. You might want to investigate Dating Creation and Ussher chronology so you can be a bit more educated about this subject.--Filll (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping Dating Creation was going to be a how-to guide ;) --B (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
When I saw it, I thought the same thing. I disappointed to find out otherwise. LOL. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Did I do something wrong here? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no, not about you. I'm just annoyed in general at this point. I think there are a lot of abuses that need to be cleaned up. --B (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This project is getting filled with drama. It's wearing me out. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name of the dog

Hey, B - I don't care too much one way or the other if the name of the dog is in the caption in the Ingrid Newkirk article, but the concensus on the talk page doesn't seem as harsh as your comment and actually seems to favor including the dog's name. If you haven't seen that discussion, take a look at it. I think that Wiki has far more latitude than a typical encylcopedia and I don't think that including the dog's in any way makes the info within any less valuable.Bob98133 (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it and I've commented on it. This really is silly. When you're writing about something else, be that in a newspaper article, an encyclopedia, an essay for school, or anything else, you don't make yourself a part of the story. (An exception would be if we were columnists or writing a blog, which, hopefully, we are not.) I see from your user page that you are a writer, so I'm assuming you would agree with this. Only two people in the "discussion" wanted to have the caption in there - the photographer himself, who is about to be blocked (see ANI thread and second ANI thread) and SlimVirgin, for whom I have nothing but respect, but she is obviously too close and wrong here. --B (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Copy Edit

I'm reluctant to edit someone else's statement to arbcom in case I've misunderstood completely. In your statement re cla68 et al, you might want to change "is not pretty decent" to "is now pretty decent". Or not. I guess most people will read it as a typo anyway. 87.254.71.190 (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (chat) 11:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate Account

Baegisthesock is my alternate account. Thanks for checking. Baegis (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo Request

Hate to bother you with something like this, but I'm working on the 2006 Gator Bowl article, and was wondering if you might have taken any photos at the game that you could share. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't at that game. I don't usually go to the bowl games. --B (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Bummer. I'll have to dig some up, then. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR block by FM

Feel free to add the WP:WHEELed block FM gave me for 3RR on SV's report to your evidence. -- Kendrick7talk 04:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Baous

Judging from the vandalism earlier on User:Buura35 and User talk:Buura35, the issue appears to be this user Baous. Does this look like a disruption-only account to you? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No idea. I don't know a thing about modern music and most real track names look like vandalism to me. ;) I looked and other than the incivility I deleted, there's nothing flagrant that I saw ... but again, I don't necessarily know what I'm looking at. --B (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you talk to him about comments like these? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I apologize - I didn't look closely enough at the contributions when you asked me to. Obviously, this is unacceptable and had I seen it, I would have blocked him immediately. I have indefinitely blocked the account with a note that if he reads our Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility policies and promises to edit constructively, he can be unblocked. --B (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why was 25:40 page deleted?

You deleted a page that I created yesterday, citing it as "blatant advertisement." Yet that was not my purpose. I am not trying to recruit people or convince anyone to donate to this particular organization. However, children suffering from AIDS in South Africa and around the world is an important topic, and I believe people should be more aware of it and what needs to be done. 25:40 is an excellent organization, and I simply want people to be aware. Can you give me suggestions on how to add this organization to Wikipedia as a more neutral page, rather than deleting all of the work that I put into that page - it took time and is very frustrating to see it all gone now! I never asked for anything on the page - simply stated their mission as a non-profit, and explained about the area. How is that an advertisement?? Would it be better to headline the article as information about the area, and mention the work that 25:40 has done there? Please help. I'm not really sure how to communicate on Wiki, this is all very new to me, but you can email me at awsoccerstar11@hotmail.com Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M2540 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:CORP and WP:N for relevant inclusion guidelines. Any topic which has not received non-trivial media coverage is not going to be covered in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not free webhosting, nor is it a means to "get the word out" about your cause or organization. --B (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrighted Image

Thank you for the explanation. I will look for a suitable replacement. Wisdombuddha (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I just went and added the same one you had suggested! Wisdombuddha (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duration of block of Kopter

Greetings! The block log for Kopter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) shows an indefinite block, though the talk page suggests a 24-hour block. Which was your intention?

(Also, did you mean for your talk page to be protected admin-only? It's transcluded at a protected page, which triggered cascading protection.) —C.Fred (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Protecting my talk page was most certainly not my intention. Thank you for pointing it out. My old user name, prior to a rename was BigDT. After I was renamed, I left redirects from my old name for a couple of months, then deleted the old pages. Any Wikipedia user can easily look at the deletion log, edit history, move log, whatever to figure out what my current name is so there is no compelling need to maintain it as a redirect. On the other hand, because of Wikipedia's insanely stupid policy of allowing user pages to be indexed by Google, someone entering BigDT in a search engine would find my current user page if the old pages are left as a redirect. After sufficient time had elapsed, I deleted the old pages. At the time, the way to stop a page from being created was to transclude it in a protected page. Now, we can protect deleted pages, but at the time, that was not possible. So my old talk page sat there unnoticed until two days ago when another admin apparently decided to ignore my wishes on the subject and redirect my old page here. By doing that, he protected my talk page, presumably inadvertently. I appreciate you alerting me to it and have corrected the problem.
As for the block of Kopter, yes, you are correct, indefinite was unintentional and I have removed the block as the 24 hours are long up and I will leave an apology on his talk page. Thank you for pointing out most of these issues. --B (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, B. Regarding your unblocking of Kopter, please be advised that two obvious sockpuppets, 72.74.3.177 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) and 72.70.106.76 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) (& there may be more forthcoming) have been engaging tonight in the same damaging reverts for which Kopter was originally blocked. Now Kopter is per se able to be back in the action. Is there a way to shut down this nuisance's entire operation? I am at a loss how to cope, and will soon be compelled to make my own 3rd reversions trying to clean up. Help urgently needed. Thank you in advance. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Kopter was blocked for 3RR, not because there was anything otherwise wrong with his edits. I will ask him to stop reverting, log in, and discuss the issue with you as a cross-article revert war is obviously disruptive. If he continues to revert without being at all willing to explain his reverts or violates 3RR using socks, we can do a range block. --B (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Judging from past experience, he is unwilling to discuss or to edit collaboratively. There have been invitations to talk coming from me and at least one other editor, and now from you. Time will tell. I will go ahead & re-revert the latest changes, pending discussion. Please let me know if you need any additional feedback or data. Appreciate your help! Hertz1888 (talk) 06:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
It did not take long. He is back — without a word anywhere — with a 7th reversion at Boston, a 6th at Philadelphia, a 3rd at Lowell (per my counts, 15 May to date). Two of these latest three as 72.70.100.65 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) (a new sock), one as Kopter. So much for invitations to discussion. P.S. Thank you for posting the dignified and thoughtful tribute to Memorial Day. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked him indefinitely and left a note that he can be unblocked at any time if he agrees to discuss his changes and to not edit while logged out. If one of his IPs edits from now on, let me know and I will block them or range block them if need be. --B (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Will do. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, hey, looky what I found...

Wikipedia:Featured topics/Atlantic Coast Conference football championship games

Just wanted to say thanks again for all your help with this and the Virginia Tech bowl games topic (still a work in progress). You may not think you did much, but the link box was a big help, as were all your pictures and everything else you contributed. Thank you so much! JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Good job! --B (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:101 0574.jpg

Uploader got themselves blocked indef so see no reason to trust their authorship claims.Genisock2 (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted their one remaining unsourced image, but as for these three, they were all taken with the same digital camera and two of them even have the digital camera name for the image, so I'm more inclined to believe their claim of authorship. If you would like for another pair of eyes to look at it, you are welcome to bring it to PUI. --B (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
If you believe them not to be copyvios please replace the image license with {{Multilicense replacing placeholder|class=people|reviewed=1}}.Genisock2 (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case

Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship in Happy Valley?

You recently undid my entry for the Joe Paterno sculpture. Obviously you found the rumor part objectionable and decided it had no place. Maybe so -- you certainly have more street cred here than I do. (Although I can assure you that tradition has already begun. In fact I decided to research the statue as a result of the rumor. Nevertheless...) I'm quite sure the sculpture exists, however! You are doing a disservice by deleting the entire post. Fact check if you need to, but I believe the "verifiable" aspects of the article are correct. Your cries of 'vandalism' are unwarranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.184.174.61 (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in my edit did I say "vandalism". That aside, under our verifiability and biographies of living persons policies, unsourced claims are to be removed, period. Street cred, personal research, and rumors aren't useful here. If you can find a reliable source (like a newspaper that talks about it, then it can be considered, although even then, it's nothing more than trivia and I don't know that it's appropriate for inclusion. But at least then there would be something to consider one way or the other. --B (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment at H20's RfA

You give two alternative explanations (that he was being serious or he was trolling) but my reading of that post was that it was neither and that it was humourous. As you'll have seen, I've not (yet?) supported the RfA myself, but I think you should give him the benefit of the doubt on that particular one. --Dweller (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

NB This is spooky - see the struck comment between oppose numbers 29 and 30 in his last RfA. Are we related? :-) --Dweller (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Ach, I responded likewise myself, but in the RfA itself. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3

I'm now agreeing with you on too many issues. Can I rudely yell at you about a random edit of yours, just so I can keep my Liberal/Atheist/Darwinist/Jewish/Democratic/Still-angry-at-Virginia-Tech-for-deserting-the-Big-East credibility? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is bad

I can't agree with you on two things in one day.

I'll blame it on the Buddhist monks that are visiting my church this week. Guettarda (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Deletion Requests

I only propose deletion for templates that are not in use and I have never had a problem before using the means through which I just requested those deletions. If you go to WP:SBS/T, you may note at the bottom of the page the huge list of deleted templates our project is monitoring. Every one of those templates I proposed for deletion using the method I just used and every one of them was no longer in use, most of which got the okay for deletion from the user who created it, as in the case for these templates if you check the last post on my talk page. The templates are not in use and the only templates that are noted on them are those that I also put up for deletion. So if you would kindly delete them and their document pages, I can go about my business as can you. Thank you.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 20:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason I originally sent you a message was that {{S-namesakes}} was in use. It is transcluded in a user's sandbox as well as by all of the other templates you wanted to delete. This makes it very difficult to find out what templates you are asking to delete because all of them have multiple copies of the deletion message. If you would like to have them deleted, please orphan them (including from the user's sandbox), then use {{db-t3}}. --B (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject College football June 2008 Newsletter

The June 2008 issue of the College football 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Чарльз - жопа

Hi. Чарльз - жопа (talk · contribs), whom you blocked for a user name, is requesting an unblock at User talk:Чарльз - жопа. Under Wikipedia:Username_policy#Non-Latin_usernames, we no longer block a user name soley for being non-Latin, but instead ask that they provide a translation or a transliteration. (Because of m:SUL, we can no longer enforce language-specific requirements.) Do you read the language that this name is in and is it something offensive in the original language? (Obviously, if someone makes a user name that is profane or otherwise inappropriate in a foreign language, that is still blocked.) Thanks. --B (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can read it. It is in Russian and translated Charles is an arse. It is clearly inappropriate. He suggested to change his name to Анти-Чарльз meaning Anti-Charles it does not have profanity but still can be a personal attack Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Alex, I have declined the request and asked him to choose a different name. --B (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please undelete Portal:Christianity/Selected article/June 2008

I created the above page, why has it been deleted. There is a Portal:Christianity and the notice to create the above page is here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity. Could you please undelete it. Kathleen.wright5 02:52, 4 June (2008)

The page contained no content. You wrote "Portal:Christianity/Selected article/June 2008" and then you blanked the page. I have setup the portal so that if nobody creates content for a month, it will use the previous month's content, but by putting an empty page there, no content shows up. There is nothing for me to undelete - I went ahead and put an article for this month. If you have an article you would like to see in there for next month, please add it to the nominations page for the portal ... but nothing helpful will come from creating an empty page. There either needs to be an article there or it needs to be a redlink. --B (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] University of Missouri move

Hey, I saw you removed my speedy delete housekeeping tag on University of Missouri. There has been extensive discussion at Talk:University of Missouri–Columbia and a consensus has been reached. The article has never really been located at the University of Missouri namespace before except for a few days during a botched move, things have been done properly now I think. If this seems all in order would you be able to delete the article and associated talk page? Grey Wanderer | Talk 18:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, done. --B (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Grey Wanderer | Talk 18:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ultras White Knights

Hey

I was writing the article about Ultras White Knights and I have a slight query regarding the pics and why were they deleted?? I'm a member of this group and I actually took many of the photos myself - even the logo, album cover, t-shirt etc I helped coming up with their design!!! And btw the pics aren't copyrighted since it's just regular members of the group, including myself, who take the pics and I just asked them if I could use the pics on wikipedia and they said sure... so what's the problem???!!!


Sorry to bother u again :S, but I'm not really sure how to obtain a free license for photos... and for the record, yes, the media has reported on us several times, and not just the Egyptian media for that matter.Basedas2 02:10 P.M, 5 June (2008)

[edit] Positive reinforcement

OK, I've long thought that positive reinforcement was in far too short supply on Wikipedia, so here goes. Although we don't always agree, I have a huge amount of respect for your commentary, which is always thoughtful and on-point. You do excellent work here. Keep it up. That's all. :) MastCell Talk 17:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. --B (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It looks like Wikipedia:Abuse reports/217.87.x.x has come back again

Hi there, following on from your range block comment and for your records, I have added 217.87.74.150 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) and 217.87.77.57 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) to the report page. Fnagaton 18:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like someone else blocked those individual IPs, but I went on and hit that range with another month block. --B (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Cheers. :) Fnagaton 18:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Roleplay_Online page

Hi, I was just wondering why you deleted this page. I briefly looked into the deletion log and explination, read the "Why was my page deleted" page and "speedy deletion" page, and I am still confused as to why this page was deleted. While I am not the creator of this page, I have made use of it over the years and I was hoping to use it again.

If you are talking about the page discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roleplay Online, I did not delete that page or have anything to do with it, but you can read there for the reason it was deleted. If you are talking about another page, I need something more to know what you are referring to. --B (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Well put.

Just stumbled across your explanation of "cultural Christianity" versus evangelical Christianity over at Talk:Barack Obama. You've done a good job at expressing what I was trying to convey, so I reckon I'll be stealing your wording in the future. Shem(talk) 20:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: user:I'm On Base

Yep, that's a valid autoblock. But I think the "Prevent account creation" box should be ticked for 67.189.185.73 (talk · contribs). Unless there's any objection, I'll reblock with that option ticked. Thanks, Spellcast (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You are correct - when I unchecked anon only, I must have also accidentally unchecked prevent account creation. I have fixed it. --B (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On drawings

While I still agree creating a 3d bust of a person would yield odd results, what about well done, drawn portraits like this. (Don't worry I'm not gonna start illustrating people too, but I don't think I'd mind something like this to illustrate a person of whom we have no photographs.) I'm curious, how do you feel about them? Anynobody 04:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent design RfC

At this RfAR, you've expressed an interest in a RfC on behaviour of editors at articles related to intelligent design. As an outcome, User:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC provides a Workspace, with discussion at User talk:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. We also must try to resolve the dispute and as a first step my suggestion is developing guidelines or procedures aimed improving behaviour from now on, so that the desired outcomes can be achieved amicably. Your assistance and comments will be much appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 14:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)