User talk:Britcom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome! 1.1 Additional tips 1.2 Be Bold!! 2 Homophobia is not a phobia 3 Final entry 4 Britcom is back. 5 Homophobia article comments 6 Global Warming skeptic userbox 7 On that... 8 Re: Subjects of interest 9 3rr 10 Blocked 11 Wikipedia Gangsterism 12 Scientists opposing... 13 Civility 14 Trolling 15 Comment on Admins, Gangsters, and Academics 16 Civility 17 Cease and Desist 18 Florida 19 WMC complaints 20 Florida

[edit] Welcome!

Joe I 14:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homophobia is not a phobia

WIth reagrds to your attempts to get anti homosexualism recognised, I noticed your edits on Talk:Ku Klux Klan.

Homophobia is not a phobia. It is a neologism that utilises the suffix phobia in a non-standard way. the lead to the Homophobia article describes it correctly as "the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." Not the use of aversion and siscrimination, not just fear, and the use of OR, meaning that these are not always present.

Homophobia may be a "new" word, but it is the currently accepted term for this behaviour and/or attitude. Anti-homosexualism, as your research seems to provide sources to its previous existence as a term, should be mentioned historically in this article, not as an article of its own just yet, as it just contains the same material as homophobia, as they are two words for the same thing.--ZayZayEM 17:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome ZayZayEM, I believe I understand your point (though you may want to check what you wrote for typos). Anti-homosexualism, as I understand its definition, does not include aversion, or any other attitude of the mind. It is an "ism" a plan of action. Such plans of action rarely if ever have anything to do with fear or aversion to homosexuality. In the same way anti-Semitism has nothing whatsoever to do with fear or aversion to Jews. Jews are the target because they make easy political scapegoats. The same is true of homosexuals, gypsies, the handicapped, etc. Anti-homosexualism is a much bigger and more serious word than homophobia. You or I could be homophobic, but if we round up a mob and go looking for homosexuals to thrash then that becomes Anti-homosexualism. Homophobia doesn't cover it. Homophobia is a state of mind, Anti-homosexualism is a plan of action. With regard to discrimination I don't accept that definition for homophobia I think that is an error discrimination is a verb, the definers of homophobia cannot seem to decide if it is a noun, or a verb. They try to make it a catch all. Anti-homosexualism is a noun. Just like "plan" is a noun. --Britcom 18:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You're mistaken that the difference between a noun and verb has anything to do with this. The word discrimination is always an abstract noun. The word homophobia is also always an abstract noun. The word anti-homosexualism is always an abstract noun. The word plan is sometimes a noun and somtimes a verb. ZayZayEM has a valid point, and it's not enough for you to say "I don't accept that definition." I hope that you are able to show verifiable evidence in published literature to indicate that others have this view about these definitions and that you insert these references here to replace the "[citation needed]" tags. If these citations do not exist, I'll still support keeping this article in Wikipedia in a dramaticly altered form as a historically important word and/or a word that describes a concept that overlaps with homophobia with a differing emphasis (as was done for Judeophobia). Note that Anti-Islamism has redirected to Islamophobia for some time. This is an example of a similar non-standard but common usage of the suffix "-phobia." Flying Jazz 20:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final entry

Britcom has quit Wikipedia in disgust. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-homosexualism for information on why Britcom would want to quit. He no longer wants to be associated with people who are more concerned with their own egos and small minded self-righteousness, then getting it right. Britcom has recently come to the conclusion that Wikipedia is overrun by hypocrites and territorial quangos who punish rather than foster those who would add to Wikipedia's content. Don't be fooled by Wikipedia's claims of neutrality and inclusion. Wikipedia is an exclusive club and if you are not one of the anointed, you will be ostracized and your edits condemned.

Caveat lector

--Britcom 07:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of copy/pasting the latest version of this article from the article space into a subdirectory of your user talk page (User talk:Britcom/Anti-homosexualism) in case the article is deleted or redirected. This way, if you change your mind, decide to return, and use this content elsewhere, it will still be easily available. It will also be available to others. Flying Jazz 02:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh man. To the extent that I was responsible for you quitting Wikipedia by nominating Anti-homosexualism for deletion, I'm sorry. If it helps any, I recognize that it was a mistake to nominate it, I wasn't thinking clearly. Now I feel bad. Come back so I won't have to feel bad? I'll give you a cookie if you come back? Herostratus 21:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Britcom is back.

Britcom has decided to come back to do some more editing for the betterment of mankind.--Britcom 05:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back! But please be cautious of violating WP:3RR, especially in regards to Global Warming. You'll find the particular statements you're editing about have been discussed ad nauseum on the article's talk page and talk page archives.

Atlant 13:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the thought. So far I have made only two Revs on Global Warming today and those were in compliance with WP:POLICY. I enjoy stirring the pot a little if it makes things better. The good news is at the moment it appears that the issue with Weasel words WP:AWW on the page is resolved. --Britcom 13:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homophobia article comments

Thanks for your "lace embroidered handkerchief" comment on the Talk:Homophobia page. It expresses my thoughts, but with a bit of vigour - and vinegar.--Shtove 00:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. :) --Britcom 13:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global Warming skeptic userbox

Based on comments you've made on the Global Warming Talk Page, I thought you might be interested in having a userbox on your user page that expresses your skepticism of anthropogenic global warming. It looks like this and will also add you to Category:Wikipedians who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. If you're interested, put the following on your user page:

{{User:Oren0/GWSkeptic}}

Feel free to tell your friends. Thanks! Oren0 22:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On that...

I have just been reading you some of the stuff that you have written. I find you very interesting. You are very opinionated and on top of that have very strong opinions. You do not like to conform. People seem to get up you at how you edit because you love to edit from a non-neautral point of view.

For that I respect you.

Although the views you hold are of a secular nature.

I am a Christian and are very similar to your charicteristics except that I oppose most of all of your opinions (I have yet to read all that you have wrote).

I hope to enjoy, opposing what you stand for. We are very similar people on different side of the fence.

What do you reckon: Talk Page.

Abishai 23:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in my edits, I enjoyed writing most of them. Here is something to chew on for a while: I believe the concept of "Neutrality" is bogus. Reason and Logic are better suited for having a debate. Facts and History are flawed, because people lie and have lied about things for thousands of years. Therefore what are the chances that some (or most) of what we are taught about anything might be false? I think the chances are at least 50/50. If that were true, then how can you trust anything any book, school, web site, newspaper, TV program, or even parent, has ever told you? Answer: you can't, (with few exceptions). The only subject that can be relied upon for factual and absolute truth, is... Math; not History, not Science, not English, not Social Studies, not even Religion. It is amazing isn't it that there are no lobbying groups or political parties or marketing firms out there spending millions of dollars to convince their target audience that 2+2=5. Imagine how some people could cash in if they could convince people that 2+2=5. I loan you $2 today, and then another $2 tomorrow, and when the loan comes due, I tell you that the two loans add up to $5 and you agree. Isn't that crazy? Well, I found out that what makes Math true can be applied to anyone's notion of what truth is, and thereby arrive at a dependable and repeatable result. This philosophy can be described very simply: "Truth is... all else is not. That is the same as the definition of God. The Bible says: God is the creator and has ultimate authority over everything in the Universe, including us. Therefore if God says something is true, it becomes true simply by virtue of His authority. Man does not have that kind of authority. Though many try to trick others into believing a lie long enough for them to get what they want and then get away before the truth is discovered. Some of those lies have been going for hundreds of years without being discovered except by a very small group of people who are often disbelieved by others when they expose the lie. The trick is, people are vain and don't like the idea that they can be duped, so (incredibly) they defend the lie and try to keep it from being discovered by others, naturally this means that the victims of the lie actually denounce those who are trying to expose the lie, because the longer the lie is kept a secret, the longer the victims of the lie can forestall their own humiliation and embarrassment. I enjoy exposing those lies every chance I get. I do this with logic, a bit of very unsportsmanlike devils advocacy, and a little bit of what I call "marketing terminology". I enjoy slaying the sacred cows of people who engage in unquestioning faith in their ill conceived doctrines, or even better, those villains who actually orchestrate such lies as a means to their evil ends. They both deserve their fates. The sooner the liars, hypocrites, and fools are cut down, the sooner the absolute truth will become apparent and accepted by the masses just as the truth of Math remains without question. --Britcom 02:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Subjects of interest

Hi, Britcom — thanks for your comment on my talk page. I'm sure that we do have interests and some opinions in common. I'm not terribly interested in geology, but the book you pointed to does seem interesting. I don't know if I'll have time to read it, though. From the table of contents, it looked as if he was opposing Newton's theory of gravitation, which seems pretty major to me — aside from distortions caused by relativistic movements, Newton's laws of gravity are still considered an accurate practical model of physics. (Of course, Newton himself believed that his writings on physics, mathematics and optics were just a sideline, and that his real contribution to the world was his theological writings — however, his heirs disagreed, and actually suppressed some of his more esoteric theological writings. But I digress...) Anyway, I'm somewhat sceptical of a scientific hypothesis that requires that classical mechanics be thrown out completely — I'm not sure whether Brown's work does this or not, but if it does that would be a mark against it for me, at least considering it scientifically. (That's not to say that a good science fiction story couldn't be made based on it — there's a lot of good science fiction based on bad science!)

As for the homophobia business — I actually agree with you that "anti-homosexualism" might be a more accurate term than "homophobia" for organized and theory-based opposition to homosexuality; however, "homophobia" is the word that's widely used, so that's what Wikipedia has to use primarily. Wikipedia's article on homophobia should use the senses in which the word is used in reliable sources — and I think that by and large, it does. There may be an argument for expanding the "criticism of the term" section, perhaps pointing out more explicitly that many social conservatives object to the term and/or its usage to mean "opposition to homosexuality". (The section mentions two organizations in particular, but there's probably a case for a broader statement.) If specific claims elsewhere in the article have been refuted by reliable sources on the conservative side, it would be appropriate for the article to mention them, in keeping with WP:NPOV.

I didn't follow the earlier deletion debate around anti-homosexualism, and if you wanted to re-open it at DRV I'd be willing to consider an argument for it as a distinct term, as long as the resultant article avoided original research. It would be helpful if you could point to modern sources which distinguish "anti-homosexualism" from "homophobia", or clearly use the two in different senses. If any exist, that would be a very strong argument for overturning the decision to make anti-homosexualism a redirect to homophobia. As I said at Talk:Homophobia, the homophobia article isn't going anywhere, but like all Wikipedia articles it's a work in progress, and subject to improvement by consensus. I hope that the article's regular editors can address your concerns — but I advise you to concentrate on specific elements in the article rather than trying to engage in a general discussion about homosexuality and the LGBT movement. The latter is more likely to result in tempers getting frayed than the article being improved. People of good conscience disagree about this subject, but we can work together to find a neutrally worded compromise that's acceptable to everybody: that's the Wikipedian ideal, at least, and I think it's worth striving towards. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr

You've broken 3RR on the sci-opp page. Please don't do this, you'll get reported and blocked if you do it William M. Connolley 12:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to inform you but, my edits on the subject page don't qualify as reverts. Policy has not been broken. I am keeping a list of those of you who have been ignoring WP policy on that page. --Britcom 12:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, not another one! --Stephan Schulz 12:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you - it looks very much like a revert to me. I suggest that you don't try testing this William M. Connolley 12:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with William. Please re-read the policy. --Stephan Schulz 12:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't stir the pot Steve. --Britcom 12:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Stir...stir...stir... ;-) --Stephan Schulz 13:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for breaching the three revert rule ([1] [2] [3] [4]) and being uncivil ([5]). Please do not continue this behavior. Thank you. Sean William 13:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I reckon the last edit (#4) wasn't a revert, partial or ortherwise ~ UBeR 16:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly at least a partial rv: it reintroduces the picture of the scales, and the words "The neutrality...". You can't argue that because it was a different tag it can't be a rv, otherwise people could just create tags with different names to re-add the same text William M. Connolley 17:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Might not be a revert but certainly gaming the system. QmunkE 08:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What utter rubbish.

If my edits are 3 reverts (and they are not), then ANY three edits that someone later reverts are themselves counted as reverts. Preposterous. These people are not acting responsibly and William is bashing me for bold editing. Shameful, SHAMEFUL I tell you. Everyone should read about this example of Admin condoned editor bashing. The MoveOn.org Leftist POV is taking over Wikipedia by violence. Bashing those who don't agree with their ideology and persecuting those who challenge their organized and violent article squatting gangsterism. By using co-opted Admins they gang up on and bash those editors they don't like. Making a mockery of the Wikipedia NPOV policy and destroying Wikipedia's reputation. We should not stand for, nor should we allow these destructive, violent, and hateful activists to ruin Wikipedia.

What was my sin that these people just couldn't help foaming at the mouth about? I DARED to question the "mainstreamness" of the UN bankrolled Scientists who propound that "Global Warming" is an actual fact and that it is caused by Carbon Dioxide, the same stuff that everyone exhales with every breath. I posted a dispute section on the talk page of the article: "List of scientists opposing global warming consensus" after they changed the title to "Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming".

Lets give these lovely people a round of applause for being so effective at silencing an opposing viewpoint on THEIR global warming article and driving away good editors through terrorism, HEAR, HEAR! So I asked myself, am I the only one who thinks this is a problem? Apparently not. Have a look: Left in Control of Wikipedia --Britcom 10:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• At the end of the day, if you are right other people will agree with you and reinstate the tag. The 3RR was created to prevent edit wars and get people to discuss their issues on the talk page. It doesn't matter how right you feel you are in your actions, or how unfair you think other people's actions are, it's there as a barrier, a point at which you step back and think and talk. If you wish to draw attention to the article, I suggest you have a look at requesting comments or Wikipedia:dispute resolution. Wikipedia operates by consensus. If you want to change something, ultimately you have to build consensus. Steve block Talk 21:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not you didn't perform the exact same edit 4 times in a row is irrelevant. The fact is that you were edit warring and actively disrupting Wikipedia by repeatedly tagging that article. The two tags you used effectively serve the same purpose, and while are not the strictest definition of violating the 3 revert rule, you still were tedentiously editing.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid the point seems to have gone over your head. I dispute that an edit war existed, I was not reverting anyone's legitimate edits, nor was I editing the body of the article page, nor did I make the same edit four times. The three gangsters on the page in question are working in collusion with each other and refuse to allow anyone to tag the article for improvement, because they don't want any improvement. Why, because they're gangsters with an agenda who think they own that page and are acting out territorially. By your uninformed accusation blaming me for "disrupting Wikipedia" you are excusing their lies and their terror tactics. Get a clue and I suggest you take a hard look at your flawed logic when it comes to which policies are okay to ignore and which ones are not. Selective enforcement (especially discriminatory selective enforcement) is a form of intimidation and gangsterism. It is the very definition of gangsterism. Don't preach to me about fairness and disruption if you are going to condone gangsterism. Hypocrites have no standing with me. If you think the policy is insufficient, then you try to change it. Don't expect me to live up to a policy that you wish was in effect or that you think "should" be in effect. So unless you have something intelligent to say, I would encourage you to go harass someone else cause you're preaching to the crickets here. --Britcom 12:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If you still care about your "gangsterism", take it to a community venue like WP:ANI, WP:RFC/U, or WP:RFAR if you think it's important. (Which it isn't. It will most likely be declined.) Sean William 14:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Who says we need anyone's permission? --Britcom 14:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Gangsterism

Thanks to the latest editor bashing incident (above), I have decided to make a public catalog list of Wikipedia Users who have a history of engaging in Gangsterism and Article Squatting on Wikipedia.

What is Wikipedia Gangsterism? It is the organized effort by one or more editors and/or Admins to purposefully and with forethought, conspire to prevent fellow Wikipedian(s) from editing through territorial article squatting. In other words, editors who revert or delete edits by anyone they don't like or agree with, or who use Wikipedia Admins to bash, block or harass fellow Wikipedians with little or no valid reason, but rather because their motive is to deter, intimidate, or drive the editor away from the article they are squatting on, or away from Wikipedia altogether. Hopefully with the help of the Wikipedia members at large, the worst offenders can be identified and their actions exposed, and put to a stop for the betterment of the Wikipedia community at large. The list will be comprised of user names documented by Wikipedia members to have engaged in gangsterism and include a tally of the relevant examples. I want to thank everyone who has encouraged me to finally set this list up and also those who have helped me investigate how widespread this activity really is. --Britcom 11:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to learn to be humble. --81.172.109.131 09:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientists opposing...

Please refrain from editing or removing other peoples comments. The text in question has been written by three serious and well-established editors, and has been around for days without anyone objecting. Calling it "vandalism" is plain wrong and can easily be interpreted as a personal attack.--Stephan Schulz 06:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It sounds to me like your are saying that I do not qualify as a "serious and well-established editor" so my own comments warrant removal for that reason, while the comments of the anointed few may remain even when they are clearly designed to be demeaning to another editor. --Britcom 04:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that you should not edit or remove other editors talk page contributions. And I am saying that it shows poor judgement if you call a talk page edit that has been around on a highly watched page for 3 days and had been written by 3 editors, all of which are longer with the project that you, and which have between 4 and 40 times your number of contributions each, "vandalism". I also was suspicious (but hadn't said, assuming good faith), that you were trying to make a point. --Stephan Schulz 08:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe Vandalism is too broad a term to use for what was being done. I probably should have called it incivility and a personal attack. I felt Vandalism encompassed both concepts. If you look at the record you will see that those same editors continue to delete my comments that have nothing to do with them. That is classic article squatting and gangsterism. I deleted one poll that was designed to be personally offensive and demeaning to me, and Willy blocked me for it. No revert first, no warning, no explanation, just Sudden Blocking. Are you now defending their deletions of my own relevant Poll questions on the talk page with the same fervor as you condemn me for one deletion of a rude pole? No sanctions were forthcoming for those talk page deletions. If you are defending them or excusing them, isn't that a text book example of a double standard? --Britcom 02:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Please read and understand WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL; you have 24h to do this in William M. Connolley 21:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You have a rather low standard of civility if you think there are no examples of your lack of it; try [6] William M. Connolley 08:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

W.C., Your actions are noted. Your behavior is anti-social and you have insulted many other editors here, not just myself. The record shows that your various talk page comments are an excellent example of what we don't need or want here on Wikipedia. You have abused the limited authority given you by Wikipedia and you are unapologetic, even gleeful with your own abuses of authority. Given your track record, if I were you I would resign from editing here and save myself from any further self-inflicted embarrassment and shame. --Britcom 21:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Glasshouse. Stones. Don't. --Stephan Schulz 21:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Steve, see "Gangsterism" above. --Britcom 22:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Mangojuice, I assure you I am quite calm. Question: are you condoning W.C.'s sarcastic and smarmy comments which I attempted remove? If so, please explain why you think that it is okay for editors to belittle other editors serious attempts to arrive at a consensus to better an article? --Britcom 21:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling

Please stop trolling. This [7] is a complete waste of time William M. Connolley 11:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Soooo... It's okay for you to delete someone else's poll and call it "Trolling", but it's not okay for me to do it, is that about right? --Britcom 11:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• William M. Connolley, I don't know if it was trolling or not. What I do know is that publically calling someone a troll, is not something that should be done casually. Especially when the person doing the calling is an admin. If you believe Britcom is a troll, then take him to dispute resolution, or post on admin noticeboard and get him blocked, or better still dont feed him. In my experience, removing talkpage comments is a serious matter and is not something that should be done lightly. Lsi john 12:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not doing it casually. Britcom was trolling. Why do you assume I removed his comemnts "lightly". And no: taking every case of trolling to DR is not reasonable William M. Connolley 12:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sir, the talkpage guidelines and policies are pretty clear about editing another user's comments. I do not see an exception in those guidelines made for removing trolling. I do see that WP:DNFT suggests ignoring trolls. Having been in almost exactly the same situation myself, I was sternly warned not to do it again. As an admin, I believe it is your responsibility to set a standard of conduct for non-admins to aspire to.

I believe that your deletion of his comment on the discussion page was improper. I have said what I believe and I have said why. I have no desire to force you to agree with me. Lsi john 13:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on Admins, Gangsters, and Academics

The above sections show that my comments to Gangsters and Academics (some of them Admins even) clearly P*** them off. I seem to be a lightning rod for retaliation by some very unscrupulous and arrogant people. Since I "dare" to question the wisdom and logic of some of the academics here on Wikipedia, and I back up my arguments with logic and reason. When these types find that they have painted themselves into corner (logically speaking) they have a tendency to lash out either irrationally, or worse, using lies and administrative actions to bludgeon me. (this sounds pretty bad, but it really doesn't hurt at all :) I suspect this is how they deal with dissent and independent thinking at their schools and workplaces. ) Sometimes they even summon their equally unscrupulous comrades and colleagues to gang up on me The above sections chronicle the attacks I have endured here and stand as a testament to the flaws that exist in Wikipedia's policies and enforcement. --Britcom 04:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Just a suggestion. Raymond Arritt 01:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Britcom, I understand your frustration. W. Connely is a rodeo clown with a badge. Look no farther than his Wiki page to see. He is notable for trolling Wikipedia. I know that it's hard to ignore, but try.Rod Serling 2001 03:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL... and its a tin badge at that. --Britcom 06:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

If you can't find anything useful to do, have a rest William M. Connolley 19:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cease and Desist

Please cease and desist being a nuiscance to Wikipedia. Your contributions are pointless and your grammer incorrect. Learn English before contributing to the English version of Wikipedia. Thank you. Previous comment by -User talk:65.32.68.31

"nuiscance"? "grammer"?

Looks like someone needs to learn English first! Victor Antolini 00:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

??? I have no idea what this is all about. --Britcom 10:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Florida

I'm not going to do a total reversion and end up edit-warring you, but the cities I removed in that big edit were all less than 25,000 people, as noted in the articles for each one. (Yes, I checked before deleting them.) Did you check before you reverted me? I don't make deletions without careful consideration (note my entry on the talk page, in which I am seeking consensus before making radical changes), but eliminating cities with less than 10,000 people (and entire COUNTIES in one case) in a list of cities >25,000 people seems like a no-brainer to me, which is why I included them in an edit that created some major formatting improvements as well. I really am surprised that you found it necessary to revert me for performing a bit of rather obvious housecleaning. Horologium t-c 17:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed my mind. I did revert you. My edits were not rash, and it seems pointless to let inaccurate material sit in the article while we duel over their inclusion on the talk pages. Horologium t-c 18:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I did answer your comments on the talk page, I'll wait until you read what I wrote there. Part of my reasoning is that Florida is somewhat unique because it is a young state (but with a very old history) with very fast growing population and large influx of tourists who use the Florida article to help them find their way around and decide what to see. --Britcom 18:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I responded at Talk:Florida, but the edit in question was unconnected to the proposals I made. The current criterion for inclusion in that list is quite clear, and the cities I removed did not meet the >25,000 threshold. That's just housecleaning; the proposals I made are a lot more sweeping, which is why I brought them up for discussion. I don't know how useful the page would be for tourists, as most tourists don't visit the entire state, and the only tourist attractions mentioned are the four horseman (WDW, Busch Gardens, Universal, and Sea World), which everybody knows are in Florida in any case. There is no mention of other sites of interest in the state, but the individual city listings (and the county listings) will list sites of interest that are local, which is more useful. Horologium t-c 19:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WMC complaints

There seem to be several instances of you having run ins with WMC. The forensic problem is that there doesn't seem to be any way to easily trace back to the original texts and make an independent judgment. I'm not a professional in this matter. Nobody's paying me. Every time WMC parachutes in to a climate related article (my most recent encounters with him are Climate of Mars) and starts doing his schtick he gets me closer to pulling together a proper dossier to go to the admins. But I won't go with false alarms, discipline instances that are actually deserved or other things that would undermine my case because ultimately what will be WMC's downfall IMO is a pattern of abuse charge, not some spectacular instance of him going over the line. If you want to collaborate on this, lay your evidence out on your own talk page in a way that makes it easy to review. If you decide to, I'll try to notify if I ever get to a level which justifies me exerting myself in a mediation then arbitration proceeding. In short, document your complaints better and it'll serve the seemingly growing community of people who have been unjustly dinged by this guy. TMLutas 21:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My own subpage has just been put up. Comparing you to a flea bitten dog and intimating that I need to police my talk page of your commentary in order to preserve my reputation did it. I don't know you from Adam but WMC crossed a line there. TMLutas 23:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Further note, I left your comment on talk but the bulk of what was there really should have been in a user page, not a user talk page so I moved that over. I think that your comment still made sense so I left it in talk. TMLutas 02:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Florida

Please stop reverting to old versions of the article. The versions to which you keep reverting have redundant information that has been moved to separate sub-articles, which is the proper way to handle such an article. There is no reason to have a 98KB-size article; even 78K is too large. Horologium (talk) 12:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Go away Horologium. --Britcom 09:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)