User talk:BenB4/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents

Multiple copyright violations in speciation

Ben, you cannot copy passages from books, or scan in images and upload them. Authors have a copyright to their original creations, be it text or images, and the Wikimedia Foundation would be breaking the law if such text and images were included in unmodified form in its articles. I have therefore reverted all changes you have made to speciation and ask that you please put back only those that are your own original creations. Note that by doing so, you agree to license your contributions under the GNU Free Documentation License, that is, you surrender most (all?) of your rights to your work. Best wishes, Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible Copyvio reverts

Do not revert to versions that contain possibly copyright violations. By doing this you are putting Wikipedia at legal risk. Please, just wait until the provenance of the passages is decided. pschemp | talk 23:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It might sound like I'm being harsh on you, but when it comes to legal matters, especially copyright violations, no chances can be taken. I'm sorry if you are unhappy with this, you are still a valued editor, but waiting a bit will harm nothing. Reverting could harm Wikipedia. pschemp | talk 23:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Images

Sure. Try using PowerPoint or some other presentation software (there's a free one in OpenOffice) to make life easier for yourself. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I won't be able to complete the task for a few days/weeks now, due to unforeseen events. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not working on it yet. Thanks for letting me know. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Speciation_experiment.png

Hi Ben. Good work re-drawing the image. However, you have a typo in the image ("seperate" instead of "separate") - is this something you can fix? In addition, if the image is non-copyright, you might want to consider uploading it to Commons. Guettarda 14:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sheep

No. It says that Domestic Sheep ARE a hybrid, made from O. orientalis and an unknown second ancestor. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Image

I'll take a stab at it this weekend. --Fastfission 14:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Darwin first tree.jpeg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Darwin first tree.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Jack · talk · 12:53, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 12:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please help improve Plug-in hybrid

You have participated in energy-related activities here, so I am asking you to please consider helping to improve the plug-in hybrid article. This is an ad hoc article improvement drive. BenB4 08:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ben. I've made some changes to the layout to improve navigation, but don't feel that I can add much in terms of content in the time I have available. Good luck. Gralo 17:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Ben. I made an addition anonymously yesterday. Thanks for your work. This is a great interest of mine. Tom Haws 22:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead image in Evolution

Why not contribute to the discussion on the talk page? Several alternative have been proposed, which do you think would be best? TimVickers 00:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:$

To quote "Use the most commonly used English abbreviation, and link to the relevant article only at the first usage. In countries where the euro is used, do not place "EU" or similar prefix before the € sign. When a currency abbreviation is placed in front of a number, those which end in a symbol (such as GB£ or €) should not be separated from the number. Those which end in an alphabetic character (such as RMB) should be separated by a single, non-breaking space ( )."

I don't see such usage in the article. In addition, please specify US$ or AU$ for each usage (many countries use "dollars" it helps in understanding how much something is worth. — BQZip01 — talk 07:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead

I took it to mean the number of characters in the body of the article (this doesn't include references and images). — BQZip01 — talk 08:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

I disagree with you that your one comment on the discussion page constitutes a consensus to revert an image. Do whatever you want, I'm kind of tired of pushy editors on that article. I'm sure that that someone will get it right. Finches. Whatever. Orangemarlin 06:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Striking your vote

Hello BenB4,

Thank you for your interest in the Wikimedia Board Election. The Election Committee regretfully informs you that your previous vote was received in error and will be struck according to the election rules, described below.

The Election Committee regretfully announces today that we will have to remove approximately 220 votes submitted. These votes were cast by people not entitled to vote. The election rules state that users must have at least 400 edits by June 1 to be eligible to vote.

The voter lists we sent to Software in the Public Interest (our third party election partner) initially were wrong, and one of your account was eventually included to our initial list. There was a bug in the edit counting program and the sent list contained every account with 201 or more edits, instead of 400 or more edits. So large numbers of people were qualified according to the software who shouldn't be. The bug has been fixed and an amended list was sent to SPI already.

Our first (and wrong) list contains 80,458 accounts as qualified. The proper number of qualified voters in the SPI list is now 52,750. As of the morning of July 4 (UTC), there are 2,773 unique voters and 220 people, including you, have voted who are not qualified based upon this identified error.

In accordance with voting regulations the Election Committee will strike those approximately 220 votes due to lack of voting eligibility. The list of struck votes is available at https://wikimedia.spi-inc.org/index.php/List_of_struck_votes.

We are aware of the possibility that some of the people affected may have other accounts with more than 400 edits, and hence may still be eligible to vote. We encourage you to consider voting again from another account, if you have one. If you have no other account eligible to vote, we hope you reach the criteria in the next Election, and expect to see your participation to the future Elections.

Your comments, questions or messages to the Committee would be appreciated, you can make them at m:Talk:Board elections/2007/en. Other language versions are available at m:Translation requests/Eleccom mail, 07-05.

Again, we would like to deeply apologize for any inconvenience.

Sincerely,
Kizu Naoko
Philippe
Jon Harald Søby
Newyorkbrad
Tim Starling


For Wikimedia Board Election Steering Committee

Understood. ←BenB4 06:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for plug-in hybrid edits

Thanks for the excellent edits on plug-in hybrid! Working with references is some of the most challenging work. Daniel.Cardenas 15:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2007 Malaysian Grand Prix

I have made comments to do with the article that stemmed from your comments. I have made necessary changes to the article in quiestion. Thanks! Davnel03 10:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

List of county roads in Hernando County, Florida should NOT be deleted

If other County Road lists in Florida can exist on Wikipedia, there's no reason one for Hernando County can't. Deleting this list would be wrong. ---- DanTD 16:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Psychoactive drug diagram

Hello BenB4. Your comments are very rash without forethought. By what authority do you make your claims? Psilocybin most definitely causes CNS stimulation, despite not being a pure stimulant such as amphetamine. I can cite references if need be. --Thoric 17:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the ontology is flawed. For example, the diagram is incapable of placing a hallucinogenic antipsychotic which is neither a stimulant or a depressant. There are absolutely no references for any of the categorizations. The article for Psilocybin makes no mention of stimulant properties. The article for MDMA makes no mention of antipsychotic properties. I will insist that you add references supporting each drug's categorization. Statements without reliable sources may be removed. I understand that you have probably put hours if not days or weeks of work into the diagram, but presents an ontology which is simply incongruent with reality. BenB4 17:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
A so-called hallucinogenic antipsychotic which is neither a stimulant or a depressant would fit fine in the middle of the diagram. The fact that the psilocybin article makes no mention of stimulant properties is a fault of the psilocybin article, and not of the diagram. I can correct the psilocybin article if you like, but please note that other wikipedia articles are not authoritative sources, and cannot even be used as cited references. As the chart contains well over 100 drugs on it, it would be highly unreasonable to have specific citations for each substance on the chart. I have no problem however in citing references for disputed placements -- something which I have already done for a number of items if you took the time to look over the talk page. This chart has been in the article for over two years, and has had years of development. --Thoric 17:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we should be discussing this on the article's talk page. BenB4 18:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I also request that you read the legend that goes along with the chart, as well as the results of the disputes that have arose in the past. I would also like to mention that several experts in the field of psychoactive drugs have reviewed the chart, including, but not limited to university professors, Alexander Shulgin, Earth Erowid, Dale Pendell, and a number of doctors. --Thoric 18:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi BenB4

Thanks for supporting the article Technology of the Song Dynasty, I put a lot of work into that.--PericlesofAthens 22:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

I've redirected a couple. Which one are you referring to? Corvus cornix 22:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Manfest was a one-sentence unreferenced stub which is barely more than spam. I have now listed Secondfest for deletion, since you wouldn't leave the redirect. Corvus cornix 22:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You aren't a newbie, so WP:BITE doesn't apply, but why not follow your own advice? Corvus cornix 22:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Plug-in hybrid

Ben, please ping me when you want me to have another look; I'm concerned that I haven't made myself understood well enough, so let me know if you have any other questions. (That psychoactive drug chart has been a concern for a long time.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tirk Recordings

Can you see my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tirk Recordings? No reply needed if you're busy, but I'm not comfortable closing the AFD as a "keep" decision since the sourcing issue was never addressed. --W.marsh 21:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Balloon fetish

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Talk:Balloon fetish, by Octane (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Talk:Balloon fetish fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Talk page for deleted article


To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:Balloon fetish, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 02:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability

I appreciate it is hard to judge what will be contentious and what will not be contentious, but when it comes to policy pages it is generally best to discuss and build a consensus on the talk page before making changes. Not only that, but if the changes are reverted, then it becomes clearer that the changes are disputed and that a consensus will need to be demonstrated and that an agreement will be needed before amending the policy. Please don't edit war on our policy pages. Our policy pages really shouldn't be protected, especially not for long periods of time, it can prove disruptive to the project and that's not good. Yes, it can be annoying that the policy doesn't read to your satisfaction at a particular instance, but your actions will last longer and be less disruptive if you discuss and build a consensus, or come to some sort of an agreement first. Given the recent history of Wikipedia:Verifiability I am of the opinion that rather than protecting the page it is now time to consider issuing blocks to prevent our policy pages being disrupted in this manner. If established users cannot get their heads together and settle disagreements amicably on these cornerstones of the project, what example does that set the rest of our users. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and if that means a page exists in the wrong version for an hour or a day, so be it. Where this impacts upon the wider encyclopedia, for example where someone amends policy forcibly to prove points in an ongoing debate, then the appropriate action is to raise the matter at the admin's noticeboard to seek a neutral consensus on the issue. Please consider this a friendly pointer; we're all working towards the same goal. Happy editing and good luck with the discussion. Steve block Talk 15:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I apologise unreservedly if my form letter upset you and was worded inappropriately, or that it did not apply to you. I can only ask that you understand it was written because I don't want to see the page protected again. The page has been protected too frequently for my liking recently. Steve block Talk 15:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, for me it's neutral to simply treat all reverters the same, so as not to be seen picking sides. Hope you can understand. Steve block Talk 15:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, yeah, given the recent history of WP:V, I do consider one revert to be one too many. I apologise for that assumption, but I stand by it none the less. If everyone used the talk page to hammer out the issues, then there wouldn't be the need for everyone to make their one little revert. Like I say, I'm sorry for the hurt this blanket message has caused you; this wasn't my intent. I simply wanted to settle the editing of the page down. I've tried posting settle down messages to the talk page of WP:V twice, and both times they had no effect. This time I chose a new tactic. Steve block Talk 15:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I hadn't intended to accuse anyone of edit warring. I had intended to remind everyone that edit warring was bad. I obviously didn't write the message well enough. I hadn't intended to threaten blocks, merely remind people that blocks were possible. I guess it is hard to convey the difference between a "friendly look, can we just all have a think abut our edits to a policy page, how they can be construed, and maybe see if there's a way we can all work this out" and a "stop this right now" in a non-verbal medium. I am sorry I did not check each editors contributions more thoroughly, but I did not wish to make any judgements. However, as you have proved, the absence of judgement making is a judgement in and of itself. Frankly, it appears every thing on Wikipedia is now held under such scrutiny, and we are so far removed from the spirit that existed, that my attempt was always going to be misread, but I felt it important enough to try. Once again, you have my unreserved apology. Happy editing for the future, Steve block Talk 16:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul lead in

I note your summary of this edit, "Reverted vandalism which seeks to move controversial political position info into top of article," shows a misunderstanding of WP:LEAD which prescribes that the intro should "briefly [describe] notable controversies." I believe that Paul's positions are so far removed from the mainstream that a summary of is positions must be included in the intro, and I will insist on a dispute tag is it is removed. BenB4 03:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

BenB4, There is already plenty of lead in material on Ron Paul's main page. This is consistent with the pages of other candidates. Further, the issues which are being moved up are clearly being taken out of context with a focus on issues in an incomplete manner which seeks to spin and prejudice the reader by clearly misrepresenting "out of context" the candidate's true positions. For this reason it is not appropriate and must be maintained within the POLITICAL POSITIONS section and/or POLITICAL POSITIONS page. Anappealtoheaven 04:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:LEAD. The only other candidate's page that I've looked at is Obama's, and only because he was mentioned on Paul's talk page. For an article of Paul's size, WP:LEAD prescribes at least three paragraphs to begin with. If political positions are important enough to have their own article (and indeed there are no other sub-articles) then they are certainly important enough to be summarized. I would like you to please also review WP:COI, which states, "Avoid making controversial edits to articles where your close connection to the subject may cause a conflict between your agenda and Wikipedia's goal of producing a neutral encyclopedia." BenB4 04:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul controversy

I don't know if it was intentional, but you deleted some of my edits when you reverted Anappealtoheaven's latest work. If that link to the new Controversies article disappears, that article will get deleted (which some people are already trying to do). I thought you of all people would support me on this.--Daveswagon 04:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I consider myself a Paul supporter, but I shudder every time Anappealtoheaven makes an edit. If you have any suggestions on how to deal with him, please speak up.--Daveswagon 04:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

By the Way

Greatly appreciate the copyedit. Best wishes, NSR77 TC 15:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul political positions section

I just want to get your position on this: do you believe the "Political positions" section is too long or not?--Daveswagon 20:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, two other users and I would like it to be cut back, so I wanted to make sure I wasn't stepping on your toes by doing so.--Daveswagon 20:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to move this to userspace...

The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I, VanTucky, award you, BenB4, this barnstar in accordance with your work in deleting two images which compromised Wikipedia legally and ethically. Bravo! VanTucky (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. ←BenB4 06:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Lateral Coital Position

Thats a tough one to do a diagram for, because I'm not completely sure what exactly it is I'm looking at. I've got a distinct feeling though that if I tried to do that to my girlfriend something or someone somewhere would end up broken. Perhaps that diagram doesn't do it justice like you said. A photograph might be the best option? (if indeed this position is actually humanly possible). WikipedianProlific(Talk) 00:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Further experimentation has uncovered this is actually possible! But you require a female partner much shorter than you else you get crushed, which was a problem for me as i'm 5' 10" and my girlfriend 5' 7".WikipedianProlific(Talk) 11:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Example images in Non-nude photography

Hi Ben, and thanks for your message. I used admin powers to restore the images which were prematurely deleted outside of policy and procedure, after only 1.5 days of an IfD discussion. There has been very little concrete discussion of policy and legal issues in that IfD. As I wrote to Tony Sidaway, "I don't think it's correct to pre-emptively delete images (or anything else) based on "doubts" or personal opinions. That's why we have policy and procedure. I've asked people to elucidate their concerns in the IfD, and the response has been vague handwaving about "ethical concerns" or "legal issues", but no one seems to be able to demonstrate a relevant Wikipedia policy or specific legal doctrine. The assertions of the provenance and copyright release by the uploader are entitled to a presumption of validity, unless there is actual evidence (as opposed to mere suspicion or "doubts") otherwise."

While the uploader in question has been given warnings about copyright issues in the past, so far as I can tell -- and given the ones you cite -- they seem to be more of a case of getting the license or source data correct as opposed to actual copyvios. What you refer to as "responding to requests to verify authorship with personal attacks" was basically a response confirming that he did indeed "take the photo [himself] with [his] Kodak camera", which is not exactly good evidence rebutting the presumption of truth -- which I think all users enjoy unless demonstrated otherwise -- in his assertion of ownership and release to the public domain. As for the quotation from Jimbo, the diff you provided shows his correction of his signature to a number of unrelated remarks and it is not at all apparent what is being referred to. (And if Jimbo wants to use WP:OFFICE powers to delete the images, or wishes to participate in the IfD himself, I'm sure he will do so.) --MCB 21:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

I insert information that is supported with citations, whereas you consistently insert information that is uncited and call other editors biased when they removed it. Which of us is not neutral?--Gloriamarie 22:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

He has not said that he is "against gay marriage" and in fact when asked about it has said something to the tune of "anyone can have any relationship with someone else and call it what they want." That can be well-sourced, while what you're saying cannot. You can certainly say he's against gay marriage if that is actually the case and reliable sources say so, as is the case with John Edwards and many other candidates. Most people (and especially Republicans) are against gay marriage, so if I was trying to get Ron Paul elected by my edits, I would actually want you to include that tidbit! I don't care whether it's included as long as it's sourced, and the one source you've given has the above quotes, but those are regarding federal and "activist judge" intervention and Paul has said that he believes states should have the right to choose. He voted against the FMA, which you forget to mention in your edits. That would have banned gay marriage at a federal level. I don't know whether he is personally against gay marriage, but he has voted for it to be decided by the people on a state level. That can be proven. Your assertion cannot. It is original research for an editor to decide that he is against gay marriage when he hasn't said so and neither has a reliable source. Find a reliable source that says it and you can include it. If he's as against it as you say, it shouldn't be that hard to find one good source.--Gloriamarie 23:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Please give the source that says he is against gay adoption, or whether one time he voted against a bill which included an amendment (not included in the final bill, so not central to it) that prohibited federal funding for adoptions by unrelated people. He votes against most federal funding for anything.--Gloriamarie 23:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Where is the citation for the assertion that it had nothing to do with funding? What is the name of the bill? If he takes his faith more seriously than libertarianism, wouldn't he have voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment?--Gloriamarie 15:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Automatic firearm

I'm confused. Are you commenting about this edit?--Daveswagon 23:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I see this: "Fully automatic firearms are covered in these articles:
Machine gun
General purpose machine gun
Heavy machine gun
Light machine gun
Medium machine gun
Squad automatic weapon
Submachine gun
Assault rifle
Automatic rifle
Machine pistol"--Daveswagon 23:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The questioner said "submachine gun" and Paul didn't specifically answer the question. Paul only said "automatic weapons". Not all machine guns are automatics and not all automatics are machine guns.--Daveswagon 23:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There are also divisions of "fully automatic" and "semi-automatic"; many small pistols are semi-automatic.--Gloriamarie 15:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter remarks

I have started to summarize and condense the newsletter remarks section on the Ron Paul talk page. Would you mind weighing in with your thoughts. Thanks. Turtlescrubber 15:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

How dare you call my edits pov

I came on your page and asked for your input. In fact, I asked for everyones input. I also worked out a version on the talk page before inserting it into the article. Where was your response. This whole section stays out of the article until there is a compromise version. And in the future, assume good faith. Turtlescrubber 23:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What is you issue

I have been looking for compromise and input the whole time. Now you accuse me of trying to whitewash the page? You won't even discuss any changes. You are anti-compromise on the Ron Paul page and that won't serve you well. Turtlescrubber 03:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You are at 3rr

Please don't revert the page anymore. Turtlescrubber 00:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: David Vitter

There is nothing odd about the link; the page has just moved. See the bottom of the page at http://sbc.senate.gov/committee.cfm. Vitter's photo specifically is at http://sbc.senate.gov/photos/large/vitter.jpg --Tom (talk - email) 04:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Because the minority party gets its own page, often to be critical of how the majority party is running the committee. This is true of many Congressional committee websites (such as [1] or [2]. After the Democrats took control, they now get the front page, and have relegated the Republicans to another section of the site. See http://sbc.senate.gov/republican/. --Tom (talk - email) 13:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:AACS Decryption Diagram.svg

Can you make the text legible at 250px?

This is trickier than it sounds so I will revert to your version, but I should note that diagrams like this are intended to be viewed at full size.

Is it Kp or Km? Should you give the full name of the intermediate keys? Is AES-G3 really the same as decryption? Are sequence keys represented?

Km is used more internally by AACS and would fit inside the "Subset difference tree" box in this diagram, the full names can be easily inferred from the article text, and the distinction between the different AACS AES decryption routines is too detailed for any article other than AACS (the same goes for sequence keys). Being a very simplified overview of the AACS system, the diagram has to sacrifice a certain degree of depth for greater breadth.

Should you have arrows to show the flow direction? ←BenB4 02:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The image does have arrows, but it appears that MediaWiki's SVG-to-PNG converter doesn't support them. View the full image in Firefox to see the arrows. Noclip 22:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Burglars Tools Found in the Bank.gif

Oops, my bad. I've updated the description with a source: http://www.collectionscanada.ca/cin/index-e.html There is a collection of fascinating drawings from a publication called Canadian Illustrated News. Nobody has yet made an article on the newspaper, which I guess used drawing before the common use of photos in newspapers. Deet 00:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

 :o

Marc Talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks. ←BenB4 06:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former members of the United States House of Representatives

FYI, User:Valadius reverted List of former members of the United States House of Representatives back to the complete list, so you might want to reconsider your withdrawal of the AfD.--Old Hoss 22:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

PS, I can't get to your talk page from your user page due to the graphic.--Old Hoss 22:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

How does my solution work for you? —Valadius 19:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter

My edits speak for themselves. They are neutral. Your edits, your edit descriptions, and behavior on talk pages also speak for themselves. You can say "derogatory comments" then, but it has not been called a "controversy" by a mainstream source so to do so is original research. This is a minor point anyway, so I'm not sure why you're making a big deal of it.--Gloriamarie 16:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how "Alleged newsletter remarks on race" is not sufficient, but that is a minor point and I don't care about it as much as you seem to. I do not like someone saying that I have no business editing a certain article just because I give my opinions about it on the talk page, when I have written a majority of the article in question, and when I was a contributor to the original insertion of the section in dispute and reverted it untold times when it was blanked by anonymous users. My edits are neutral and yours have not been for the most part. That is what is important. I don't appreciate it. I'd rather spend my time contributing to Wikipedia.--Gloriamarie 20:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree; I believe my edits have been neutral. Which of mine do you think are the most biased? ←BenB4 02:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Navigation and common.js

There seems to be a problem with Template:Navigation, common.js, and/or some related mechanism which is causing templates using Template:Navigation to intially show the wrong word out of the ("hide"/"show") word pair. Someone took your suggestion and modified Template:Navigation to cause a default hidden state (a default I like, BTW), but it seems that the result is currently that the using template, although in fact hidden, shows the "hide" button name rather than the "show" button name, which is the appropriate name to cause the body to be shown. (Toggling the button gets them into proper sync; it's the initial display that's the problem.) I don't know where this is going wrong as I haven't found where the hide/show text is coming from, but it smells to me like the area you changed in common.js may be involved. Could you investigate and resolve? Thanks. -R. S. Shaw 21:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've looked for the behavior you describe but can't find it. Please tell me a specific page that this occurs on. Also, remember to clear your cache as I'm sure you've already done by now. ←BenB4 21:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Sp100 nuclear antigen and Anti-ballistic missile are two pages using templates which use Navigation, and for me have "hide" text although hidden. (I'm using firefox 1.5). I tried "?action=purge" on these pages with no effect. Is there some other type of cache clearing I should try? -R. S. Shaw 21:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Both of those look fine to me with Firefox 2, with all the boxes hidden and [show] links. Try exiting your browser and restarting it? I can't imagine what's doing that. ←BenB4 22:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
It was a browser-cache issue apparently. Restarting FF didn't help, but ctl-shift-alt-reload did clear it up. BTW, IE, which I use only occasionally, also showed the symptom, and also was cured by a reload. I hope next time I remember to check out local caching first. Thanks for your help. -R. S. Shaw 00:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

{{Hidden}}

User:Ezhiki left a note on my talk page about the recent changes to Template:Hidden. Apparently, it has broken his userpage. Could you please take a look at User:Ezhiki's userpage? Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, I did a little testing myself, and part of the problem is with the userpage itself and its other contents. When I copied out just the "hidden section", there was still a problem, but the template did work much more like you'd expect it to. --MZMcBride 23:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your help, folks; I much appreciate it, although it's probably time for a re-design anyway :) Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Death sentence

If you type in death sentence it goes to capital punishment. This is why I added the film. You may want to fix that. I would but I don;t know how to. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 20:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Lucine Amara. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Reinistalk 12:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a copyvio, I reworded everything. ←BenB4 12:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I was looking at an older version, sorry. You shouldn't commit them before changing the wording, though. Cheers, and my apologies again. Reinistalk 12:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Iraq war sources

I have some intresting sources here, Ben B4-

[3] [4] [5] [6][7] --Freetown 03:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in this current dispute:[[8]]. Thanks.Giovanni33 21:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits to WT:NOP

I have undone this edit. Please consider strike thru of your comment, as its removal will alter the context of my follow on comment. The applicable guideline is here... WP:TALK#Own_comments. Thank you for your consideration of this. Best regards, Navou banter 20:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; I'm glad you replaced that. I did not realize you had seen the comment before I withdrew it, and I am sorry about the confusion. I will use strikethrough the next time I want to withdraw a talk comment. ←BenB4 21:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I learn something new everyday about this project. Regards, Navou banter 00:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

copyright on logotypes

Re your point on User talk:N: I was citing Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems because it collects relevant references from the Compendium of Office Practices, which has been made available online. The refs discuss whether any given work is copyrightable, not just "official" symbols. As for the default assumption that a logo is copyrighted, after discussions (some of which I took part in) me and another editor made now long-standing changes to the guideline. We tried to convey the fact that logos can (on a case by case basis) be decided through consensus to have a different copyright status (i.e. be free content or public domain). See the "U.S. trademark law" section of the guideline and also Template:Trademark. If you think the guideline is unclear then I would be glad to start discussion on clarifying it. Best, nadav (talk) 06:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What law suggests to you that the SNES logo isn't copyrighted? In any case, whether or not an assertion would eventually stand up in court, Nintendo would almost certainly try to claim it. Sadly we have to look out for who's willing to go to court and waste Foundation money, not just who's right. ←BenB4 06:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why you assume Nintendo would file such a frivolous lawsuit given that the copyright office has made itself clear about what it considers mere typography or trivial geometric combinations. I'm not a lawyer, but in this particular case it seems to unquestionably fall under the uncopyrightable examples pointed out in the Compendium, and the consensus reached in the deletion discussion backs up this opinion. I try to be very conservative on copyright interpretations, but at some point copyright paranoia becomes a hindrance to our project. nadav (talk) 06:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand how treating the SNES logo the same way we treat almost all other logos could be a hindrance. In reviewing the Compendium, I believe you might be right, but in the absence of a legal opinion to be sure, I'm not going to be the one to take the chance. ←BenB4 06:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A big problem I have with the Compendium, is that it states, e.g., "Typeface is not copyrightable,"[9] which I know is not true. You know the distinction between raster and outline fonts, and there have been court decisions since 1984, when that version of the Compendium was written, which have held that typeface art is subject to copyright. ←BenB4 07:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Truth

Time Saving Truth from Falsehood and Envy, François Lemoyne, 1737
Time Saving Truth from Falsehood and Envy, François Lemoyne, 1737

La Veritas was agreed to be moved down on the page for two reasons. The first was that it was a constant vandal magnet. The second was that it was considered POV in that it represents a view of truth in primarily representing only one of the four or five main threories of truth put forward in the article. Others were pushed down and ultimately eliminated for the same reason. Frankly, the only reason it was kept in the end was to avoid appearances of caving into demands to censor. The discussion is in the talk archives. ... Kenosis 08:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The Islandic Wikipedia, which is the only one with a featured Truth article, uses the painting in the lead. Isn't it better to follow the Manual of Style than to run from vandals? What were the other pictures removed? I am astonished that such paintings can represent any point of view with regard to a particular theory -- how exactly is that possible? ←BenB4 08:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Two additional issues bayond what I left on your talk page: First WP:MOS never trumps local consensus. Second, believe it or not, La Verite was taken to be an icon of correspondence theory, and the users who maintained that position had a point, IMO. There were raucous POV disputes in that article, and for a very long time it was regarded as a tarpit until we stabilized it with a great deal of work. The topic is difficult enough for many people without dealing with unnecessary censorship arguments. If someone can find an effective image that can stand up front without ridiculous controversy, then great--please upload it I feel sure everyone who participated in the article will be delighted to put it in the lead. Thanks. ... Kenosis 08:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I found Truth Leaving the Well which I love, but she's holding the same mirror that La Verite has, so I found Time Saving Truth from Falsehood and Envy which is even better (right.) ←BenB4 11:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

SVG problems

Thanks for leaving a note on Image:Doublepen.png regarding the rendering issue. It wasn't a firefox issue; the server hadn't properly generated the thumbnail. I've fixed the problem, as far as I can tell, so I've restored the image to List of sex positions. Thanks again for pointing out the issue. --Sopoforic 00:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Scanner

It might be the "sole subject of news articles" but it is completely redundant with the biographical article. Quatloo 21:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

One sentence is a "detailed description"? Quatloo 21:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I answered your last question on the talk page. The RfA is now closed as "no consensus", but I will continue to reply to specific questions like yours on the talk page. - Crockspot 19:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem on Iraq War page

There is an inaccuracy on the page concerning Colin Powell's statements. The page states that when providing testimony leading up to the Iraq war, Powell admitted he was in some cases being 'deliberately misleading.' This is not the case. If you follow the actual link provided as a source for this assertion, you find that Powell stated that he later determined that the intelligence he was relying on was, in some cases, deliberately misleading. This is a major difference. The way it is (falsely) written in the article, Powell admits he was lying. In reality, he was saying that he provided information he thought was good at the time, but that someone lower in the chain was deliberately misleading him (and presumably others) in the intelligence.

I'm posting this to you because I see that you can change the page. You can follow the links used as support in the Wikipedia entry to verify what I've said. I know Wikipedia catches a lot of flak for exactly this sort of inaccuracy, where you have people misrepresenting what is contained in a source, but I like Wikipedia so I'm hoping someone will fix this. Steerpike100 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steerpike100 (talk • contribs) 16:22:09, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Iraqi insurgency. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: Videmus Omnia left this template after reverting without comment himself. ←BenB4 14:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the edit summary of my single revert cited the policy/guideline involved, as did the previous edit summaries by myself and other editors. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I meant without comment on the talk page, where I had demonstrated beyond a doubt that the significance criterion was met, in accordance with current policy. You decided to revert before responding. ←BenB4 14:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ben

I appreciate the reply. I use Wikipedia a lot, but I'm brand new to being registered, etc., so I won't do any editing of anything until I know precisely what it is I'm doing. Steerpike100 16:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Andy

Hello, This is who Andy is. I just heard about him in the last few days. The article talks about that CU site too. Andy ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 07:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I was around on CU when Andy got sick and died. Several CU members donated significant sums of money to Andy's fundraiser, while some others questioned whether it was a scam, as did Will Pitt in a famous post on DU. Others, like myself, just sat on the side and watched, and were not directly involved either way. I observed the whole thing, but was not involved in any of it. Beth Ferrari, who was handling the paypal account, posted on DU that the funding was cut off as a normal matter of course, because of all the donations pouring in so quickly. She also reported, as did Andy himself, that the check that was sent to the mailroom at Johns Hopkins was misdelivered, and that was why his surgery was postponed. After Andy's death, most DUers conveniently forgot that they themselves were questioning the legitimacy of Andy's sickness (including Will Pitt), and forgot the real reasons why the fundraising was halted for a short time, and the real reason why his surgery was postponed, preferring rather to blame CU for "killing Andy". All the links to the original posts proving what I am saying used to be housed on a website called scamdy.com . Unfortunately, their domain expired a few weeks ago, and as I understand it, BenBurch has purchased the domain name. So it would be a little more difficult to locate all these posts and straighten out what really happened, but not impossible. It was a very unfortunate period of time, as Andy was attacked by people on both sides, and by many people who called themselves his friends. Someone even recently tried to scrub his name from the Bev Harris article (Bev was his former employer), but I reverted it. - Crockspot 18:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Iraqi Soldiers with Helicopter

What are your thoughts on that particular image? ~Rangeley (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The new one we got, Image:Iraq streetfight.jpg, I like the best. The defining characteristic of war is death, and most of the Iraq war hasn't been helicopters in the desert, it's been guns and IEDs on the street. ←BenB4 12:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Iraqi insurgent group logos

"Nonfree image only used in gallery in violation of WP:NFC" is not a valid criteria for speedy deletion, and the images were not in violation because they meet the significance criterion, in that people are able to identify the groups from their logos, which they are unable to do without the images, and they can't from text. Please restore the images, and list them on IFD if you believe the significance criterion is not met.
  • Image:Asayab al-Iraq al-Jihadiyah.jpg
  • Image:Hamas of iraq.jpg
  • Image:Jaish al-Fatiheen.JPG
  • Image:Jaish al-Mujahideen.jpg
  • Image:Jaish Al Naqshbandia.jpg
  • Image:Salah al-Din al-Ayoubi Brigades.jpg
Thank you. ←BenB4 14:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This images you have listed were only being used for an improper purpose, and disruptively too I might add. Nonfree images cannot be used in a gallery. Period. I will not be restoring these images. You may take it to deletion review if you disagree. -- But|seriously|folks  14:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Period?" Do you believe that galleries of nonfree images which meet the significance criterion may be included? If not, why not? It seems to me that the policy is clear about that. ←BenB4 14:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact that a nonfree image is relegated to a gallery means it is not significant. If it were significant, it would stand on its own in the section of the article that discusses it in enough detail to make it significant. These were being used disruptively because at least two editors had removed them per WP:NFC and there were being persistently reinserted in violation of WP:NFC. -- But|seriously|folks  15:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, the significance criterion doesn't say anything like that. It says: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function."
  1. Would users be able to identify groups from their logos with the gallery? Yes.
  2. Would they be able to without the gallery, or if the logos were interspersed or in their own articles? No.
  3. Would they be able to with text alone? No.
As you can see, the actual text of the significance crierion is met. I am sorry that you were under the impression that it had to do with being in a gallery, but as you can see from WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use, the policy states that, "The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements normally fails the test for significance (criterion #8), and is thus unacceptable." (emphasis added.) Won't you please reconsider your decision in light of these facts? ←BenB4 15:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't imagine anybody saying, "I didn't fully understand this article until they added the group logos, but now it makes more sense to me." Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, the images do not increase understanding of the article on the insurgency in any way. The Foundation's image licensing resolution requires us to keep nonfree images to a minimum, and this use of these images does not adhere to that requirement. -- But|seriously|folks  15:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you are unable to imagine it, but I was looking at footage on ogrish.com last week which had an insurgency group logo and Arabic text which I can't read. With your deletions, how am I supposed to figure out which of the dozen or so groups created the video? It seems to me that you are rejecting this obvious example of fair use and damaging the quality of the encyclopedia because of m:Copyright paranoia, and I strongly disagree with your suggestion that the images don't increase understanding. I have asked for review of the images on WP:DRV. ←BenB4 15:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't relate to your understanding of the article. That relates to your understanding of a video on liveleak.com. -- But|seriously|folks  15:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to understand the article, I'm trying to understand the Iraqi insurgency, its subject, and being able to figure out which one of them published a video is certainly an increase in my understanding of them. ←BenB4 15:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Compromise Proposal

Absolutely, as long as you help keep this gallery out of the insurgency article. -- But|seriously|folks  16:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the RFC, I'll agree to that too. I think I'm right, but I'd prefer to be sure. -- But|seriously|folks  16:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
No rush. When you have each stub done, post the article link to my talk page and I'll undelete as soon as I see them. Once the images are restored, you're going to want to write up solid rationales so this doesn't happen again. I tend not to be agressive on tagging properly used logos without rationales, because I personally think it's obvious, but there are others who are, and I am duty bound to delete if they are properly tagged. Check out {{Logo fur}} for excellent guidance. -- But|seriously|folks  17:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance

As someone with whom I have reviewed or worked with on an article or talk page, I humbly request your assistance in reviewing the Aggie Bonfire page for Featured Article status. Any/all constructive input is welcomed and appreciated on the FAC nomination page, but please read the instructions for reviewing before you make a comment. Thanks in advance for your assistance. — BQZip01 — talk 05:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Article on the kilogram

BenB4. I did to the Kilogram article what I did to the Specific heat capacity article: I did some wholesale revising of it. It had degraded to a sorry state and needed many errors corrected. Unlike the Specific heat capacity article, others have what I call “squatters” who are not very enthusiastic about newcomers stirring the pot. I had added a section (Mass vs. weight) that Enuja deleted (stating she would later salt other articles with the text I had added). Well, to make a long story short, the section is back and I’m wondering what you think of it. On the following criterea, is it…

  1. informative to the typical visitor to this article,
  2. interesting to the typical visitor to this article, and
  3. does it enhance the article?

If you have an opinion on Mass vs. weight, one way or the other, please add your comments to Request for Comment: Scope of Kilogram article. Regards, Greg L (my talk) 21:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sherry Boschert

Thanks so much for your help with and additions to the entry on Sherry Boschert! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbagatelleblack (talk • contribs)

  • You're welcome. (Signing to archive.) ←BenB4 00:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Acronyms in Political positions of Ron Paul

And I'm sorry for being so sensitive. It is frustrating seeing valid copyedits get blown away in an edit way, but I should have been more temperate in my edit summary. Keep up the good work. Regards, Ground Zero | t 01:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC bot

I reviewed the RFC bot code with its father writer and he does not know what the cause is. I am trying some things to see if it will help. One thing I notice is that the bot has a habit of blanking, but then things go back to normal in a few minutes. Weird, eh? MessedRocker (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Disparging comments?

How can this be even talking to a talk? This is clearly POV and passes judgment. Its an opinion. Opinions are not supposed to be given. Present the information and let the reader make up their own mind. The article tells the reader to think his statements were racist and bad. Let them come to their own conclusions.

The article wasn't even controversial in his district and didnt even come up until his presidential bid.

75.37.206.111 03:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not prefer smear. Wikipedia has its own policy and we need not to follow the policies of the MSM. Why do you think we should use words like smear and disparaging? When I see this stuff on wikipedia it just makes me continue to watch CNN. There is no difference.

75.37.206.111 08:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul

I blocked the account that you told me about. If the vandalism continues at this level, I will definitely consider protecting the page. However, he seems to have been gone for several minutes now. Academic Challenger 21:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Another administrator, User:Mr.Z-man has protected Ron Paul. There is definitely something strange going on with that IP, and I will also give that a longer block. Academic Challenger 21:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Truth

I appreciated your simplifying the recently placed wikilink to semantic field. Nice edits to the lead in that article, IMO. ... Kenosis 03:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Modafinil price discussion

The discussion of prices in Modafinil is unusual, but are you sure it is against guidelines? ←BenB4 11:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The price discussion is not encyclopedic in general - not really relevant to the article. There is at least one formal reason to remove it, see [WP:MOS] Precise language: "Avoid statements that will date quickly, except on pages that are regularly refactored, such as those that cover current events."Paul gene 10:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course price is changing all the time; prices from different suppliers are different; discussing prices in the article is also original research forbidden by WP. Paul gene 10:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR Violation on Ron Paul

You have been warned and will be reported. Just a heads up. Turtlescrubber 06:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I jumped the gun. Changing tags is perfectly acceptable. Turtlescrubber 06:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dada Revision

I'm new to this, so I hope I'm writing in the right place...I couldn't find an e-mail link or anything.

Thanks for the Good Faith and No Biting (I haven't had my shots yet), but I didn't understand specifically what you were referring to with the third link.

Insofar as the link I inserted, I've done museum work with Dada, and the link in question actually makes a lot of sense if you sit down with it. As I mentioned, it wasn't for comedic purposes, but to help in understanding Dada. Feedback? Thanks, bluewiki3.

Replied on user talk. ←BenB4 07:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul legislation

I have no problem with it in Political positions of Ron Paul in the section on abortion. However, the section in the main article is supposed to be a summary, but your version has an inordinate focus on abortion, mentioning it in four separate places and in at least two full paragraphs while other positions get only a few words or no mention at all; at least two other editors have agreed with me on this on the talk page since yesterday. To say that it conflicts is original research without a source and to include two pieces of legislation in full detail while ignoring other important information is not only not NPOV but causes undue weight and the section to be unbalanced. That's pretty clear to those who have responded on the talk page. Why are you concerned about one subject being NPOV and not all the others? Why the focus on abortion at the expense of everything else? From the responses on the talk page, you are the only one so far who sees your version as NPOV. --Gloriamarie 06:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not in including those acts; it's focusing so much on them in what is supposed to be a summary article. Saying that he believes in states' rights or that he does not believe in allowing federal judges to overrule states' decision-making is much more informative. To argue your point a bit, both of the legislative acts in question do not go against what he has said about abortion; they would simply take away the Supreme Court and federal courts' ability to overrule states' decisions on abortion, because he thinks states should be allowed to decide either way. States would not be required to outlaw abortion, and it would be as before Roe vs. Wade, where some states outlawed it and some did not. He doesn't believe in the federal governmment interfering, which includes the Supreme Court. The Constitution also allows Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court if they deem it fit. So, I'm not sure what your point is. The end result of the bills = states deciding, which is what Ron Paul has said he's for. I don't see how that goes against his stated position at all. The Sanctity of Life Act would have no effect other than states being able to write their own laws on abortion. You can read it for yourself and see that the entire thing except for the first sentence deals with limiting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.--Gloriamarie 09:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

From what the bill says, it would seem to allow states to decide whether abortion was murder; the bill does not say that it would automatically make all abortion murder. I think it's overkill to have both pieces of legislation because they are similar. A summary would be something along the lines of "Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act in 2005, which would take jurisdiction on abortion away from the United States Supreme Court." That basically is repeating what's already said about Roe vs. Wade, though, so I don't think it's necessary. Why do you think abortion should make up such a large part of the Political positions section? --Gloriamarie 10:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think he has made abortion a "major part of his campaign," other than an appearance at one event. One paragraph is quite different from 2.5+ or 3 paragraphs as you previously had it, but I think enough is said about it as it is. What more can you possibly say other than he is an "unshakeable foe" and he wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade? You'll have to discuss it on the article's talk page; I'm not the owner of the article or anything.--Gloriamarie 17:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Bush's War

Hi, I just ran a Google search on "Bush's War" and got The Nation, which is one of the oldest American weekly newsmagazines, is it not? And at some point, mere op-ed pieces become standard usage, seeing as how they are written by opinion leaders. Depending upon the publication under consideration, of course. Varlaam 23:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, on the first page of results, we get, " Bush's War Against Evil," "Bush's war support rising?", "Bush's War For Reelection," and "Bush's War On Cops." ←BenB4 00:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Edge of Seventeen (song) in the section about song inspiration

Hey there! I appreciate your edit to the Edge of Seventeen article -- I was adding things in a bit of a rush, mostly because I get writer's block if I sit there mulling over the best ways to write things. I agree that the two inspirations part was a bit odd. What I want that part to convey (eventually) is that the inspiration for the song title was unrelated to the inspiration for the actual content of the song. Nicks had the title some time before the events that inspired the lyrics and music. Anyway, I thought I'd let you know what I was trying to get across with that part; feel free to ignore this message, or reply to it, or whatever you want. Thanks! - Carolyn81 03:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

{{anchor|space}}

You added the tag into Real number. I don't want to revert in case there's a reason for the tag, but I don't see what possible reason there could be. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I see. I'd use the tag symbol (or perhaps R) rather than space for that usage, and would you please ask at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Mathematics? Perhaps someone there has a better way. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you!. I think this barnstar works best, so I'll put it on my page:

The Editor's Barnstar

The Editor's Barnstar
message

.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelbusch (talk • contribs)

lol ←BenB4 22:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

Hello, I've set up a Wikiquette notice here.--Gloriamarie 01:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

GNL

Hi Ben—Sounds good! I really would like to calm the waters with the doubters, too: I don't want this to be perceived as a win/lose situation. Tony 04:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Thanks for the heads up. The first and the last edit you pointed out, I believe, would not apply because I was not undoing anything but just improving them. The last edit, I took nothing out, but reordered the sentence so it made grammatical sense. Anyway, I'll keep that in mind.--Gloriamarie 07:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Swound!

Hi ben, thanks for your help yesterday. I started putting a page together on the band but had no time to finish it. I have just gone back to it now and it has disappeared. Any idea why this has happened?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KillerManiller (talk • contribs) 09:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent comments

Did I say that it was? John Smith's 06:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Feedback in terms of discussion on WP:ANI, admins saying they thought I needed to change else they wanted to impose harsher sanctions, etc. I've only ever had short blocks and people saying "just talk it over". John Smith's 06:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand what I was getting at now? John Smith's 07:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your concerns. I did try to sort something out, but El_C kept vetoing any suggestion the community should discuss/sanction Giovanni and myself separately - he also tried to kill off the discussion, as Durova pointed out. That was unreasonable - I think he wanted to do that because he knew the community would recommend a tougher sanction on Giovanni than myself that way.

Anyway, I didn't file the arbitration case and I can't stop the arbitrators from taking it on. If Giovanni and/or El_C dropped their objections, it wouldn't be a problem. But if they're going to insist I be restricted as much as Giovanni, what's the point in accepting that when there's at least the chance the arbitrators will be just and recommend a more modest proposal for myself? John Smith's 16:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course you could always ask those two guys to change their minds. John Smith's 17:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Vowell

Thanks for the note, Ben. I responded on my talk page - and also reworked the drawing a bit, since you raised some good points. Let me know what you think. --Greg Williams 12:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Userspace sandbox

Did you want a copy of the other article placed in your userspace as well? (The other article is "Html form validation".) Vassyana 05:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:BenB4/HTML sandbox, per your request. Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you. Cheers! Vassyana 19:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't stalk me

It's not cool. Turtlescrubber 12:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied on user talk. ←BenB4 15:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
So you admit to stalking me. Great. That makes the wikipedia experience so much more enjoyable. Leave me alone and tend to your own things. Turtlescrubber 16:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Replied again. Checking up on a user is not a violation of WP:STALK unless there is intent to harass. ←BenB4 16:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
So stop harassing me and leave me alone. Turtlescrubber 16:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

James S

Have you been contacted by James Salsman about the DU article? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No, nor by any of his sockpuppets, or anyone else for that matter. ←BenB4 22:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on!

"Sheltered" and "gave refuge" are synonyms. Do you have a source that says he didn't? Isaac Pankonin 09:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Adultery?

That's not the point--whether anyone was convicted of adultery in DC since the 50s-or-not, the point is obvious hypocricy (not merely isolated to Sen. Vitter). The related point is in an earlier-part of the Vitter article on his comments on abstinence and marital fidelity. Noting the factual existence of the statute isn't exactly as nuts as Mr. Vitter's opinions, behavior, or his inability to follow his own advice. That's not healthy, and neither is not investigating him through the proper congressional channels.This is all fairly self-evident and factual, and the reason to note the statute. MattJanovic 9:16PM EST, 21st of September, 2007. —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot disagree on that, but why not add some of them about Wendy Cortez? Granted, it's marginalia, but it seemed thematically appropriate. I could easily be wrong. My preference is to just write at my blog, but it struck me that there were some glaring-holes here, especially the subcommittee post and the oversight failures that many wish would continue to be ignored as the facts they are. Or even that he wasn't in the Senate when he called Ms. Palfrey's escort service! It's a complicated story with many misunderstood elements and facts. Some just little-known. Thank you for the advice, but I'm sure someone will delete most of what I've finalized today at some point anyway. Time to watch Ab Fab! ;0) MattJanovic11:40 PM, EST, 21st September, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattJanovic (talk • contribs) 03:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

FixHTML

Ben, thanks a million for putting that FixHTML template on Wikipedia:How_to_fix_bunched-up_edit_links! That problem has tormented me several times, and I just now found the article. -Eric (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictures from Plug-in hybrids

I have now uploaded 2 pictures. If you wish more pictures, please tell me what pictures. I will upload this pictures as soon as possible. --Pege.founder 11:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Middlebury / CACM

Woops, my bad. He meant that topics commonly found in American history classes are probably ok, but not so well known topics probably contain errors. David.Monniaux 13:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 01:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Pfft! I'm uninvolved and my only comment was to suggest rejecting the case as the parties were making progress negotiating. ←BenB4 01:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)