User talk:FloNight/archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Thank You 2 The Incident 3 Thanks 4 Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dr1819 5 Re: Patricia Cornwell and Image:1-02richmag_cover_story.jpg 6 Biopharmaceutical is the Science Collaboration of the Week 7 Changes to policy suggested 8 User:Socafan 9 DVD+R/W's RfA 10 Elvis 11 hmmm maybe 12 Request for adminship Agateller 13 My RfA 14 Sorry 15 just some dross? 16 G. Patrick Maxwell 17 Anna Svidersky 18 WikiProject Country Music 19 A short Esperanzial update 20 Hamilton-Burr duel 21 Help? 22 Thanks 23 Me again 24 Table setting 25 Re: Congratulations 26 RFA thanks 27 Alcoholism 28 Thanks for the heads-up 29 Perceptions 30 zigzogger unblock request 31 Big.P's slap on the wrist 32 Revert? 33 Regarding blocking 34 Amorrow 35 My RfA 36 result of request 37 nurse 38 District of Columbia Civil Contempt Imprisonment Limitation Act 39 reverting edits by indef banned users 40 Prodigal Nephew Returns 41 Bridget Marks page 42 Citing other encyclopedias? 43 Amorrow edits on Wikia, Inc. article 44 my RfA 45 WordBomb socks 45.1 MeatyUrologist 46 Thanks for your suggestion 47 Moved comment 48 Prolotherapy 49 Hydrogen is the science collaboration for August 2006 50 Thanks 51 A bizarre favor to ask 52 User:Socafan 53 Impolite Behavior 54 My RfA and your vote 55 Sockpuppets 56 Funny! 57 Ex-Homey 58 Final state highway naming conventions debate 59 You've got a thank you card! 60 Recall 61 My Recall 62 Pseudoscientists category. 63 Thank you 64 Morrow block 65 snake on a plane 66 Thank You 67 User_talk:Sam_Korn 68 Welcome! 69 ArbCom clerk 70 Hi FloNight 71 Arb clerking 72 Policies 73 Agitators 73.1 Strikes again 74 Strikes again 74.1 Thanks, anyway. 75 RfA thanks 76 Mccready re-block 77 Ashland Community and Technical College 78 BLP 79 SCOTM 80 Mccready (talk · contribs) 81 Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures 82 Biography subject responds 83 Request assessment 84 Thanks for semi-protecting Matthew Bates 85 Violation Of ArbCom's Ruling 86 What did I do wrong? 87 Pravknight 88 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000 89 Werdna 90 Help 91 Dwarf 92 Thanks 93 Biography Newsletter September 2006 94 NPOV, a joke 95 Do you like this ACW task force "Userbox"? 96 Kehrli 97 Re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella 98 Admin question 99 pseduoscientists have strong foothold in WP 100 Thanks Flo 101 September Esperanza Newsletter 102 Quick technical question 103 Asking for your opinion on/review of something 104 67.1.121.5 105 You have the job from hell! 106 ArbCom Clerk task 107 Ben Savage vandalism. 108 St Christopher arbitration 109 Marsden Arb 110 Dwarf 111 Proposal to merge Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF article 112 Vitalism 113 HI 114 Great policy 115 Science Collaboration of the month 116 Image Problem 117 Annoying 118 Arbitration 119 Time Scale 120 Thank you 121 Mail 122 Biases

[edit] Thank You

[edit] The Incident

Seems they've deleted the text of the conversations. Likely a Peej type trying to hook a fish? I don't think a kid would look for ppl to chat with on Wikipedia. Anyway it seems the matter has been settled for the time being. --DanielCD 03:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks. Yep, it's live. I'm hoping for the best. You never know :) Guettarda 14:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dr1819

An RfC has been opened concerning Dr1819s behavior surrounding men's fashion articles. Since you were one of the administrators who warned him, you may wish to review or comment on the issue. Thank you. Shell ^babelfish 01:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Patricia Cornwell and Image:1-02richmag_cover_story.jpg

I responded to your concern about the validity of a fair use claim at my talk page. I stand by my evaluation of the claim, but sorry about forgetting to notify you earlier. TheProject 20:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biopharmaceutical is the Science Collaboration of the Week

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Week, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is Carbon. You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name!

Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to policy suggested

Thank you for your kind comments on my page. As you might have noticed already, I suggest a couple of changes to the policies at checkuser policy site and the blocking policy site. Take care Socafan 17:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Socafan

An excellent suggestion. I'm sick of fighting with him. Could you please take a look at what he's doing [you'll have to look at the history] on WP:ANI? He's twice removed another user's comment regarding his activity, first mischaracterizing the other user's comment as another personal attack, and then mischaracterizing my revert of his vandalizing WP:ANI as yet another "personal attack". Tomer^talk 00:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I saw it already. Many people are aware of the situation. You need to calm down and have faith in the system to work, okay. For now you are not the right person to point out his behavior. It is falling on deaf ears and only frustrating you. Put this out of your mind and go find something enjoyable to do for a few hours. Take care, --FloNight talk 00:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for cc:ing me...I'd already read it here by the time you got it saved on my talk page ;-) I'm taking off for about 26 hours, so hopefully my calm will be greatly enhanced by the time I return :-) Cheers, Tomer^talk 00:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Falsely claiming someone "has already posted this issue on an insane amount of user's pages today" is a personal attack. The case he alluded to is different from the one that occurred now as he could have easily verified if he had taken the time before posting unsubstantiated allegations where they mislead others. TShilo12 knew this as our disagreement had only happened seconds before. However, he restored the comment, summarizing thus willingly and knowingly falsely rvv. Socafan 00:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Socafan, Stop! Take a break. You have done enough today. No more warning are needed on other users talk pages, today. No more need to rewrite policy, today. No more need to post messages on AN/I, today. No more more need to post on NPA noticeboard. FloNight talk 00:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DVD+R/W's RfA

Thank you for your support in my RfA, which ended with the result of (74/0/0). If there is anything I can help with feel free to ask. Also, if there is anything I am doing wrong, please point that out as well. I look forward to working with you in the future. Highest regards, DVD+ R/W 02:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elvis

Thanks for the advice. I responded on my talk page to your comments. --Northmeister 02:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Flo, I really need your help at the Elvis Presley page with a user who has been very disruptive to celebrity pages in the past. I'm trying to have the article meet wikipedia standards and was willing to work with him, but his mannerism and continued reverting to a long-personal essay refuted by sources is breaking the process. I read his history and found he was banned from the page recently and has been in repeated disputes over celebrity pages and found placing material therein that is misleading if not false. Maybe I am being to abrasive with him, so I need your balanced view here to mediate the process out...I have requested page protection for the time-being as well. This would allow me and others to work on a version in sandbox to get all relevant information in the article, clean it up, and make it wikipedia presetable. I would like to see this article a feature article candidate for the time he passed away in August...that's my hope, maybe a little ambitious...I wish this user had the same intention...it seems he does not, and did not in the past with Elvis and other celebrities. --Northmeister 00:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hmmm maybe

Hi FloNight! First of all, thank you for your very very nice comments at my RfA. Not only were they really nice, they were really helpful. Thanks.

About the other, you're probably right, you usually are. I think I liketo sabotage myself. Anyway it's too late to redact now... Is he a good guy? He probably is. Still, he irritated me no end when I first talked to him and he edited out what he didn't want with the comment "nonsense deleted". He might be a great guy in real live but sheesh.

I actually, generally, agree with him, mostly, on the userbox thing, but the way he comes across irritates me no end, and is destructive actually, I think a couple editors were riled enough to quit. Really, a wave of the hand and a "whatever" are not that helpful.

I dunno. If the RfA goes up or down, it's OK. Maybe people are irritated by him and it will actually help.

Hey congratulations on your getting made an admin. Did I congratulate you? Naturally you had no oppose votes. Grrrr my oppose votes, some are OK but a few are just irritating, but can't be helped. I do hope I get it, my competitive spirit is up now. It keeps hovering just above the 70% level... and that's without (much) input from anti-PAW people, so who knows...

Anyway thanks again for your kind words and undoubtedly correct advice... Herostratus 03:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

OK Mom :p When youre right you're right. Thanks. Herostratus 04:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for adminship Agateller

Thank you for your support. If you choose to e-mail me, put something obvious in the subject so that I know what it is; I get 1000-1500 spam e-mails a day and if I don't recognize the sender or see something that looks relevant in the subject, I usually assume that it is spam (if there's a doubt I'll look at the message, but one can't rely on that as I have to scan through messages pretty quickly). Agateller 09:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hello FloNight, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! Sam Vimes 20:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

I've been staring at that illustration at the top of your talk page for at least ten minutes. I've finally gotten over the fact that everyone is driving on the left side of the road, but I haven't even begun to understand what's going on in that circle. Anyway, I came here to apologize for some incorrect comments I made about you in Herostratus's RfA. I said you weren't experienced in the RfA process, but I now see that you have voted and commented in quite a few RfAs, dozens in fact. Also, I see that you have contributed to discussions at WT:RfA and several talk pages related to RfA reform. Still, I wouldn't consider your two messages "spam," so all's well that ends well. (Hopefully this RfA will end well.) Thanks. --TantalumTelluride 03:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] just some dross?

Just dropping by to say hello and I hope all is well in tucky land with you and to thank you once again for being cool. LoveMonkey 04:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] G. Patrick Maxwell

The court cases happened. They are relevant to this biography. If you read other bios, much less than court cases are included in bios, relating to a professional's ethics and professional judgment. Please see other discussion, from Kim, Jossi,, Gfwesq, etc. The author of this article was the student of Maxwell's, and wants only a one-sided POV article. That is evident from his last comment, which stated the federal settlement was okay to keep because it shows that Maxwell had a patent. Um, both cases are relevant. I agree they need not be included in a separate section. However, Oliver has continually deleted whatever he doesn't like, regardless of input. MollyBloom 03:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anna Svidersky

Hi FloNight, would you mind helping out by s-protecting this page? Since it survived AfD (by converting its original obit style to wiki and including sources and rationale for notability) it has barely changed in content, yet has become a magnet for vandalism. If you follow its History, you will notice it has (gut feeling based, post AfD stabilization) 1 tiny useful edit per hundreds of vandalisms and reversions. I believe s-protection would reduce the work load of helpful editors significantly, as there are very few vandals from registered accounts. Thanks in advance, Crum375 13:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks FloNight, your help is much appreciated. The last 24 hours or so have seen a marked reduction in the vandalism rate. It is unclear to me how many independent sources there are, although there clearly exist at least 2 distinct groups - those who insert profanities or nonsense, vs. those who insert 'supportive' but inappropriate personal messages. Obviously we all prefer open, normal articles whenever possible, in the spirit of WP. So maybe the worst is over, but I greatly appreciate your keeping watch for a while anyway. Thanks again, Crum375 12:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

FloNight, whatever you did, the instant you put the article on your watch list the vandalism rate just dropped to zero (from many per day). You must have some magic tools or potions - I'll remember that for next time. Much appreciated. Crum375 13:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Country Music

Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Country Music! If you have any questions or comments, feel free to join in the discussion on the project talk page. Also, you can help out with our current collaboraion, Hank Williams, or vote for the next one. Ahh, but you know how it all works; I think you'll be the first admin on the members list. Thanks. --TantalumTelluride 02:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hamilton-Burr duel

The Cheney/Burr shooting match is heating up again in the duel article. You took an interest last time, so I thought I might draw this to your attention. Rklawton 20:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help?

I stepped in to help at American System (economic system) but I don't think I can be useful there anymore. WAS 4.250 03:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi FloNight. I hope you got my my email... I'm not sure it went out properly because my email sometimes gets screwy. Anyway, thanks a zillion times over for your strong support on my RfA, which several people cited in the their support votes, consequently I passed. Yay! Your support, which was extensive, far outweighed any problems from the other thing. I was touched, actually. So thanks!

BTW I was in Perryville and environs last summer (and I have the cannonballs to prove it). So different from a lot of rural landscapes, which are agricultural, instead with the fences and the green fields and the horses... pretty. Herostratus 08:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Me again

Howdee, Flo. Hey I got a barnstar award the other day, I thouht you might be proud :-) And, on a more typical topic, we seem to a have another expert on the subject of alcoholism and he's insisting on writing it from the AMA/AA POV. He's now removing cited, appropriate entries that he doesn't much care for. He's asked if we would limit the editorship to professional treatment providers and prefers laymen and non medical people not contriubute to the article. That went over like a lead balloon. I'm sure I'm guilty of being a smarty pants with this nut, I have little patience for people like this, but I'm not sure what we should do about this guy. He seems to think because he is an MD he should have the last word in the article. We're trying to avoid Wiki taking a side on the unproven disease of alcoholism and instead present the various sides o0f the debate. We wants Wiki to echo the AMA/APA/AA perspective and doesn't seem to have a problem vandalising the article to protect his perspective. Got any ideas? The article is still pretty ugly. Mr Christopher 22:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Flo, point me in a direction if you have time. This doctor is making wholesale edits and removing cited, relevant information simply because he does not like it. He's removing stuff even after he's been asked not to. There are no editors contributing to this article that have any admin rights so he's pretty much doing anything he wants with absolutley no concern for what Wiki is about or what a NPOV is. Can you tell me where to turn for help, we don't need arbitration we need an admin to explain a few boundaries and policies first. Where can I get one?  :-) 02:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for everything, some serious and some not :-) Mr Christopher 21:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Flo I responded to you on my talk page. Mr Christopher 02:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, FloNight. Thank you for pointing us in the right direction. I'm planning on reverting my RFC on DrGitlow on the condition that he joins me and the other interested parties in a non-wiki based forum where we can discuss our differences. I believe that the wiki format of the talk pages isn't terribly condusive to the kind of fast-paced exchange that has been going on because it is intrinsically unstructured, making it very difficult to follow the various threads of conversation. I'm setting up a space at the Intellectual Icebergs forum so that this might be accomplished. You, of course, are invited to peek in at the proceedings.

[edit] Table setting

As you have the etiquitte book and hence a source, would you mind fixing the Place setting section on Table setting? The article states the glass is placed next to the fork, which is incorrect. Also, nothing is said about more formal settings - the instructions are for casual dining. Its a very brief, informal and partially incorrect entry, in other words. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Congratulations

Most kind, thank you :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA thanks

[edit] Alcoholism

Thanks so much for your brief but lucid contribution to the Talkpage. I feel better knowing that an experienced Wikipedian has their eye on things there, especially someone who has the good taste to quote Blake's "Tyger" on their Userpage :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 17:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I left a question about "tyger" on my talkpage; can't find my copy of Blake and don't trust my memory. Drop in the next time you're bored :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 06:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for including that image with your reply! I hadn't seen it before, but now I understand why Blake had a reputation as a poet rather than an artist :) I'm sorry to hear you had stalker problems and I hope they've been resolved. You seem like such a helpful, level-headed individual that I can only imagine your stalker must have had a couple of major kinks in his wiring. I'm going out of town for a week or so, and while I'm not quite egotistical enough to think that things will boil over in my absence...would you be willing to keep Alcoholism on your watchlist a little longer? They've really started working well together there in the past few days; I'm sure that if there's a little bump in the road then just a few well-chosen words from you would keep things on track. You do seem to have a knack for it. And if there's ever anything I can do for you, just let me know. Thanks again, and happy editing. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the heads-up

Thanks a lot for your help. I'm surprised at all the things that are traditional for people to do in order to become an administrator. Perhaps we should let people know in the instructions. I thought my contributions would speak for themselves in the nomination, but I guess I was wrong. In particular, I erased my e-mail address a few months ago when I didn't want to be contacted by people and because the inclusion of an e-mail address was "optional". --ScienceApologist 15:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perceptions

It might be that the world is filled with people that perceive things differently. Themindset 18:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course. I'm not crazy about it when I'm made to feel like my perceptions are invalid. Using "turns-of-phrase" such as: "I also find your advice to me a tad quixotic"; "Are you seriously trying to tell me"; "you could do with a healthy dose of assuming good faith"; "the poor quality of your evidence". These are off-putting to me. And then we get "seriously worried with how you were interpreting exchanges." Perhaps the person on the other end should also be worried about how he/she is expressing himself? Shouldn't communication be a two way street, and not just one person telling the other how things are? Themindset 18:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, his dismissive approach to my comments (and the comments of others) worries me; he may, in fact, not be a good fit for an admin. Themindset 18:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] zigzogger unblock request

please see the zigzogger talk page and review this request.

[edit] Big.P's slap on the wrist

You said you support the ban on my other nick. Do you think that the punishment against Big.P, a one-month block that was not even effective (he has many entries on his contribution list for this period) was appropriately severe?

How would you feel if after not using wikipedia for a few weeks you returned and saw this " we have blocked you indefinitely for your vandalism, lack of civility, inability to assume good faith and unwillingness to work with others" and found yourself blocked?

And see the words "Now piss the fuck off" "Maybe you aren't an administrator for a reason" "Piss off dude. You don't know what you're messin' with" and many other nasty and obsene phrases like it attributed to you by someone who also took the time to make arguments that aped your own position.

Honestly, I want to you think for a moment about your emotional state, and how I feel now. I think you have to do this to understand my position. I still feel angry that someone would do this to me. A one-month block is not enough. And this guy has a long and very nasty history of attacking other users and using obsene language. I think he ought to be banned for a year for this, not a month.Kitteneatkitten 03:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Q: are you a traffic consultant, or is that just a random (cute) qif?

[edit] Revert?

Can I ask why you reverted this? 68.39.174.238 22:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering it was all of two carriage returns, it's nothing. As to cleaning up after Amorrow... probably a good thing ;D. 68.39.174.238 00:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding blocking

Hi, FloNight. I noticed some comments of yours on Tony Sidaway's talk page: discussion about assuming good faith is odd considering you were carrying out your administrative duties which call for making judgments about editors! I wouldn't mind hearing more about what you think of this matter. I agree with you that administrators do need to make judgments about editors; however, that does not free them from the principles outlined WP:AGF or WP:Civil. Don't you think that it would have been better to talk to the editors in question before blocking them? That is what my question is trying to get to the bottom of over on the RfA page, although you seem to think it's pretty funny. ;) --AaronS 16:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That's all true. Good points. I'm not going to discuss the matter any further with Tony Sidaway. While I disagree with his behavior, I think that he's well-intentioned, and that he certainly does some valuable work. You're right about the "last word bit," of course -- I'm a philosophy student, so I actually tend to enjoy these discussions sometimes. A little too much, some might say. We all have our flaws... haha. I suppose that I was just caught off-guard and was a bit surprised. I think I might have let that get me a little excited about the matter. Anyways, I never had any hard feelings. I'm just trying to figure out what different people think about the project and its policies. It's a learning experience. So, thanks for your words. --AaronS 17:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion as well as having unfortunately been on the receiving end of Tony's "manner". There was one point I would like to raise. You mentioned to AaronS about putting the encyclopedia before the community. Is not the whole purpose of the encyclopedia to be used by the community? Without the community the encyclopedia is a dead fish, thus I beleive your view may be partly the reason why we have so many problems with administrators... they forget about the people themselves and instead generate their own perception of how to enforce the rules... resulting in people like Tony, the attitude he has and his belief in his infallability. Enigmatical 22:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amorrow

I think it's worth looking into as to whether User:Doublespace is a sockpuppet of Amorrow. Check the contribution history of Wikipedia:Wikimedia people. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

[edit] result of request

what was the result of my admin request? i cannot find it at the old link.Kitteneatkitten 20:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nurse

eh, I did not know you were formely a nurse... which leads me to ask you if you have some special pages to recommand me with regards to Wikipedia and medical information. I will give a talk in august at a conference on health in Geneva ([1]) and will talk of Medical information online. Any advice or recommandation is welcome. (I plan the presentation to be criticized... but I could not resist going as all big NGOs will be there) Anthere

[edit] District of Columbia Civil Contempt Imprisonment Limitation Act

What's going on with District of Columbia Civil Contempt Imprisonment Limitation Act? Your last edit changed a valid link to one with a 404 error. Please recheck your last edit. Thanks. --John Nagle 03:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reverting edits by indef banned users

I was reading your comments on reverting Amorrow's edits. I infer that you saying that edits by banned users must be reverted. I was this because I've been meaning to revert just about everything ever contributed by BrittonLaRoche and his sock puppets (Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BrittonLaRoche). I've been discouraged by the thought of having to come up with edit summaries any more specific than "reverting suspect contributions by indef. blocked editor". The material he contributed to Celtic toe has me convinced that he's pretty much of a B.S. artist, and so I suspect that his other substantive contributions are similarly poor... Pete.Hurd 05:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I see you added the indef block template to BrittonLaRoche's userpage. A similar substitution was made to his talk page a while ago. If it's common practice to put such templates on the user page, then perhaps the talk page should be reverted to make it's contents more readily available to other editors for purposes of judging his contributions in the mainspace. Pete.Hurd 17:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prodigal Nephew Returns

Can I just say your personal page in lovely! It reminds me of my auntie's house. I'm 19 and English and me page is a mess, like a 19 yearolds page should be, but you are clearly houseproud (or whatever the equivalent is). Just felt like telling you.--Crestville 20:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Crestville : ) How sweet! I do it to get rid of stress. Whenever another editor snarls at me, I decorate my user page instead of snarling back. FloNight talk 22:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry, meant to get back to you but forgot, just like a real nephew! You're page seems to have changed - not as floral as it once was. Still much nicer than mine though. How are you? Can I have a cup of tea please? and watch Bargain Hunt?--Crestville 17:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bridget Marks page

Please review email sent to info-en-q@wikimedia.org regarding this page

[edit] Citing other encyclopedias?

I was just wondering if you were aware of any policy, guideline, or community consensus about citing other encyclopedias on WP? I couldn't find anything, but it seems that if anyone would know...you would :) Thanks --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 02:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amorrow edits on Wikia, Inc. article

Given the problems with shooting Amorrow's contribs on sight, would it be possible to temporarily semiprotect the page for a couple of days until he goes away? Especially given that I'm in danger of hitting the 3RR rule. Captainktainer * Talk 15:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That was insanely fast. You're awesome, FloNight :-) Captainktainer * Talk 16:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my RfA

[edit] WordBomb socks

The results of a checkuser I ran on 66.102.186.0/24 are at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Unsorted results. I have blocked 66.102.186.0/24 for one week. There is one user who might not be WordBomb but he made only one edit. Fred Bauder 00:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MeatyUrologist

Confirmed A checkuser run July 30, 2006 on MeatyUrologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who is believed from his editing to be a sock of WordBomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), shows the following socks created or used from from the same ip: IPfrehley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Ska-Flaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), TheLame (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), LimeWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), WikiHendrix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), WikiRicardo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), FloydBarbour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and WordBomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Fred Bauder 09:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your suggestion

What should I do if I think that my contents get inappropriately removed from the talk page? I cannot just restore them because then I may get blocked for violating of WP:BLP. Andries

Should I make a wikipedia:request for comment? Andries 23:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts I think that I reported my complaint at the right place. [2]. Andries 00:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved comment

Moved comment from top of my talk page.

EDO Corporation: Your reasons for vandalising this page to not hold water. The criticism sections are well researched and backed up by independent and reliable sources. Please mend what you have damaged. (Def-1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.157.111 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Prolotherapy

Hi Flo, sorry I didn't respond to your comments until now -- I didn't have this page on my watchlist! I just replied on the talk page. best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hydrogen is the science collaboration for August 2006

Okay guys, now let's make this an FA!

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Month, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is Carbon. You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name!

Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the heads-up. - Nunh-huh 00:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A bizarre favor to ask

Thanks for your cleanup work w/r/t talk:Jefferson Poland. But could you consider reverting it for ten days or so? One of the authors (not Morrow, but his friend Sam Sloan has actually been elected to the Board of the US Chess Federation. Sloan's ethical fitness is currently a subject of debate. This page has an obvious bearing on the debate.

If you decline this request in the interest of the WP project, I certainly understand. Billbrock 07:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Socafan

You might consider changing {{unblock}} to {{unblock reviewed}}. As always the difficult thing is knowing when to give up: sometimes people come to accept the problem, other times they never do. Just zis Guy you know? 14:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impolite Behavior

I asked for a section in Paul Weyrich's biography to be removed because I felt it was slanderous because it accuses him of beliefs that he doesn't have: Dominionism. I have known Mr. Weyrich personally for almost 5 yrs., and I have discussed his views on Church and State with him at length for years. I asked FeloniousMonk to remove it and he refused. I edited it to try to bring some sense of balance, but he keeps removing citations from Mr. Weyrich's personal writings that conflict with his prejudices. I apologize for flaming, but I am getting sick of seeing my good friend slimed when I know what he believes far better than the ADL or TheocracyWatch. I want FeloniusMonk locked out of Paul Weyrich's article because I consider his entry vandalism and slanderous. Wikipedia rules clearly state that partisan sites should not be used.

BTW, I am new here and I removed that post after reading the rules. User:Pravknght--Pravknight 01:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA and your vote

Hi Flo, Thanks for participating in my RFA! Ultimately, no consensus was reached, but I still appreciate the fact that you showed up to add in your two cents. I'm taking your advice about changing the way I look at banned users and whatnot. You can feel free to talk to me about it or add some advice on my improvement page. Sincerely, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)

[edit] Sockpuppets

My pleasure, and thanks for keeping an eye on these things. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funny!

[3] Funny! :) --Durin 17:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ex-Homey

I have unblocked Ex-Homey to participate in the arbitration request he made. He is limited to editing only arbitration pages. I will use checkuser to enforce this. Fred Bauder 15:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC) I also unblocked Homeonetherange. The password is lost and the only effect is to autoblock his new account. Fred Bauder 15:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. :-) -- ChrisO 17:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Flonight, as long as the ban is carried to the current, mainly involved editors, I do not see that there is a community ban carried by a wide consensus. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

So far, the editors not involved are: Ban suggested by Thatcher131, supported by FloNight, JoshuaZ, and Mantanmoreland. Anyway, you're involved, Kim, and you want your voice to count. But anyone who has opposed Homey shouldn't count? Anyway, it's early days; more people will comment in due course. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Kim, I think our disagreement is mostly a matter of semantics. Let me explain my actions and thinking in a little more detail, okay.

My blocks have nothing to do with an editing dispute. As far as I can recall, I have never edited an article with Homey. My indef blocks are purely based on his use of disruptive sockpuppets which are proven by Checkuser. By my way of thinking "community ban" is the best name for what happened to Homey from the time that Fred and I started blocking his accounts as disruptive and abusive sockpuppets. When a longstanding experienced editor/admin is indef blocked and no admin unblocks them, it is a community ban. Later, ArbCom can open a case and adjust the community ban. Later, Jimbo can adjust the community ban. Neither of these actions change the fact that the original block was a community ban.

Kim, if you gather community consensus; you are free to declare that Homey's indef ban (community ban) is over and he can freely edit anywhere on Wikipedia. Until that happens I will consider him under a community ban and act accordingly. Which means that I will block Homey if he edits outside of the Arbitration case pages.

If you disagree with the above, we may need to agree to disagree on this point in order to preserve peace and harmony in Wikiland. : - ) Take care, FloNight ^talk 19:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Saladin1970_appeal/Proposed_decision#Ban_by_the_community. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final state highway naming conventions debate

FloNight, your participation is welcome in the Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll. Please give your input as to the process by 23:59 UTC on August 8.

Regards, Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You've got a thank you card!

[edit] Recall

I've added you to the tally. I think it likely that Crzrussian will accept your and Rebecca's endorsements although it's not my place to say. I hope that after having seen this process and how collegial it was that you would consider putting yourself in the category too... I really believe it will help matters out. ++Lar: t/c 07:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Recall

Hello. Your response here will be appreciated. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscientists category.

Thanks for your well-reasoned explanation of why the CfD should be overturned/relisted. JoshuaZ 20:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

[edit] Morrow block

Note that Susan Polgar has an sprotect template inserted by a non-admin, but it is not actually semi-protected right now. I have a request pending but maybe the block is enough. Phr (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Further note: it looks like you've indef blocked a dynamic IP address, probably not a great idea. Phr (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I meant 31 hours! --FloNight ^talk 03:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] snake on a plane

Interestingly, a certain snake on our plane, if you know who I mean, hasn't yet touched a certain article. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

I am reluctant to post this because it will mess up the wonderful aesthetic of your talk page, but I want to thank you for the kind note you posted to my "IP address 201.53.27.33" talk page and to let you know that I am now registered. Thanks. Dasondas 21:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User_talk:Sam_Korn

I don't get the line, "Tony asked me to help with clerking tasks." Different Tony? Sorry if I'm out of the loop here. - CobaltBlueTony 15:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

[edit] ArbCom clerk

Hi FloNight. There was strong support among the Committee for making you a clerk, so I've added you to the list. For more information, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks. If you have any more questions, feel free to get in touch. Thanks for volunteering! Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi FloNight

Where can I complain about what I feel is FeloniousMonk's uneven misapplication of the Wikipedia rules? I spent four hours this morning reading over them, and they blatantly say that editors, administrators in this case are not permitted to inject their personal opinions into articles without proper citations. WP:WTA,WP:LIVING,WP:CITE,WP:NOR,WP:LOVE,WP:BITE, WP:FES

I've reached my wit's end with this whole thing. I don't feel he is interested in reaching a consensus with me, and if Mr. Weyrich stole $1 million from a bank I would want proof. Unbacked up assertions don't cut it in my opinion.

Just to share a story from my personal life, I work as a reporter and an acquaintance of mine is the chairman of the board of supervisors of West Pikeland Township, PA. His political opponent told me he holds illegal board of supervisors' meetings in his parents' general store, but I told him I would write an article exposing this if he could verify it with a document or an eyewitness.

That's how I operate. At they say, "Show me the money."

I don't want to engage in personal attacks here, but the TheocracyWatch article accusing Mr. Weyrich of being connected with Dominionism isn't any better sourced than those accusing the "Chicago Friends of Albania" of being aligned with the Hoxha regime.

I have felt ganged up on here, and User:JimboWales has said he wants

TheocracyWatch is secondary source material. There aren't any primary sources to back up its claims. I checked its Web site for the sake of fairness, and the best I could find to create a link between Mr. Weyrich and Dominionism was a guilt by association connection in Mother Jones magazine. WP:NOR

Based upon the definition of orginal research, I believe this section qualifies. It should be stricken until/unless primary sources can be found that either show. My beef is about sourcing and wording, and how I believe the rules have been abused to advance a particular POV.-- Pravknight 19:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arb clerking

My only concern was that there were enough clerks around to do the work. I've noticed too that Tony was absent for much of August and that he does much of the clerking work. It is great that you are joining in. Despite the increase in the size of ArbCom and the addition of clerks, ArbCom continues to have a reputation for being pretty slow to act. I have no interest in doing any of that work myself (it not being an interest of mine), except for the one page I created: Involved parties index (which is still months out of date). I'm glad that you have volunteered. Good luck :). NoSeptember 13:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policies

Hey. Thanks for the message. I have been on the mailing list and did not like it, I also have tried IRC and find it impossible. I am not a very technical person, it would appear. As to reading the policies - I'm a lot more versed in some than others (read, blocking policy). I am working on it! Thanks, - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agitators

Hi FloNight...saw your comment about my note to Plange...one of the pages is the John Wayne page. It's terrible how they litter up a bio (I don't know how it ever got its B-class rating) with ever foul-word they can find on a song lyric about a person.

I can give you a name or you can go to it and maybe see some things. You know how the big names attract all sorts. I posted a few things...such as the actor's bio box...only to have them removed. I put it back and it still stands. I have placed a couple of quote boxes on the bio pages--as Plange has showed me--and this person keeps taking it off (check the Discussion page for Wayne).

I realize that there is a lot we have to put up with here, but I hope the day comes when Wiki realizes that editing is fine--but it's these "choppers", as I call them--that get good writers discouraged to the point that they leave. You need good writers. I feel if you create a page, you should have some control over it. I have to admit that I just go and edit at times; it's quick, it's easy and even fun. But I have also spent 2 weeks doing a bio from scratch that has been given an A-class rating; I'm proud of that; there's only about 3 dozen of those, and the choppers haven't gotten to it yet. When they do, I'll probably get discouraged.

There should be some kind of standard that gives full-fledged writers some kind of power over the "choppers".

I've editorialized enough this evening.

Watch this. I'll go put my quote box back on the John Wayne page and watch what happens.

Thanks for your interest!! trezjr 00:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strikes again

Hi FloNight...

...this Batman2005 person has hit me again.

He is complaining that I didn't follow my own complaint of using "Discussion", but to me "Discussion" means being used BEFORE you make the change--NOT AFTER--which he did not do.

I really am not looking for a battle--compare my contributions to his--but I could use any assistance/advice you can provide.

Thanks so much!!!

trezjr 03:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strikes again

Hi FloNight...

...this Batman2005 person has hit me again.

He is complaining that I didn't follow my own complaint of using "Discussion", but to me "Discussion" means being used BEFORE you make the change--NOT AFTER--which he did not do.

I really am not looking for a battle--compare my contributions to his--but I could use any assistance/advice you can provide.

Thanks so much!!! trezjr 10:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, anyway.

Thanks, anway. I'll try to reason, but am not optimistic about the end. I will just leave the page to him. Can I consult you in the future? trezjr 22:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] Mccready re-block

Cross-posting from my talk page: Hi Flo, I agree with your reblocking Mccready and your plan (as stated on his talk page) to pursue RFAr if he continues as he has. Having worked with him for several months off and on at acupuncture, I sense that he's an intelligent and well-intentioned guy, but so certain he's right that he's alienating others. Refusal to collaborate is a big no-no, and not everyone who opposes his edits is an extremist as he'd like to believe. Lately he seems impervious to the requests of numerous editors to change his approach, so I think you've done the right thing. (I also strongly applaud your compassionate initial response of unblocking him, and you were right to then draw the line once he blew the chance.) Thanks and all the best to you, Jim Butler^(talk) 23:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ashland Community and Technical College

I poked around your user contributions and came across Ashland Community and Technical College. I take it you are from the Ashland, Kentucky region or keep up with the local news? I am unsure if ACTC still offers any bachelor degrees. I added a listing of their associates, but I am unclear on much about the college since it went out of UK's hands.

BTW, thank you for the IPUser block. We will all breathe a little easier tonight not having to deal with that user's edits! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the BS offered was in Nursing, but looking back at their page, its not listed anymore as that. I'm not for sure if they decided to just have the students transfer to an in-state college to complete a BS or go to Marshall. It's been about a year or two since I have last heard of that.

A bit of trivia I may try and find the source for later: Ashland was very close to having a full-fledged state university back in the 1920's (IIRC, 1923). Failed by one vote.

As for the IP edit, we were civil in providing dicsussions, approperiate links why his statements were not warranted (e.g. no citations, original research, weasel words). It was when he began trolling through my user contribution list (or my user page since they are both list my contributions) and began adding ^{[citation needed]} to numerous articles (without contributing much else) was when red flags were raised. His last edits were regarding Louisville, Kentucky and some mention of the Fort Knox region being part of Elizabethtown. Despite a discussion (which downgraded quite fast with yet another "admin" threat), he continued to readd the affected statement before (I assume) going to bed.

We'll include in the edit summary of any fuutre edits, if they are unconstructive or do not add value to the content, "See discussion and explain why his statement(s) were removed. This should clearify up some points. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BLP

You said there are BLP warning templates, and that they could be found on the BLP talk page. But I looked there and didn't find them. Maybe you could help me out here? Dansiman 03:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I see them there now, must have been a browser cache issue. Dansiman 03:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SCOTM

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Month, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is Carbon. You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name!

NCurse Image:Edu science.png _work 06:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mccready (talk · contribs)

I think Mccready (talk · contribs) is understanding now that he mustn't lose his temper with the pro-quackery trolls, even if they gang up on him to try to control an article. He may have been a little forthright but his willingness to try to uphold WP:NPOV in the face of aggressive trolls should be applauded even if his execution was a little awkward. People (inc, btw, the arbcom) are far too willing to try to settle disputes on behaviour rather than content. He needs to be encouraged to WP:CITE and discuss properly, but the best way to do that is IMHO not to give him reason to think that it is him against the world, that WP is infested with quacks and trolls who are too eagerly supported by short-sighted admins. Besides which, if you are against him, you need to give him enough rope -- if I am wrong he will hang himself. — Dunc|☺ 10:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just out of interest, do I count as a pro-quackery troll? Or Fyslee? I think the chiropractic Talk page deserves very serious attention from the community, not as an example of pro-quackery trolling, but as an outstanding example of conscientious collaborative editing according to WP principles, and incidentally that offers several examples of how disruptive editors can be "brought into the fold" by relentless civility and patience. I would like you to look at it; it's an article that I think is approaching FA class. I am not anonymous, so feel free to look me up. Gleng 12:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Dunc, FWIW, I strongly prefer discussing on content, both in terms of scientific research[4] and WP policy[5][6]. But ad hominem ("pro-quackery troll" etc.) is always a good fallback for those uncomfortable on such ground... cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 18:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

So what do we do now? There are about twenty people supporting this 30-day ban which you have requested here. I find it very telling that those who are in support of this ban are not just those who disagree with McCready's POV of pseudoscience. People who share his POV are going out of their way now to say "Don't help us!" and "Your tactics are doing us more harm than good!" Anyhow, I appreciate your diligence on this matter. Thanks. Levine2112 00:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures

You may find this useful. --Tony Sidaway 21:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As new clerks I'm sure you're eager to get to work. I've summarised the current status of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Administration#Pending_cases. --Tony Sidaway 16:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the Ericsaindon2 arbitration. Seeing you do this really does make me feel like I can relax a bit. --Tony Sidaway 05:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biography subject responds

Hi...you might want to read the Discussion page for actor Michael Oliver at Talk:Michael Oliver (actor), just to be apprised at what is being said/claimed and asked for. trezjr 10:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request assessment

Hi FloNight... ...I've added the name of Michael Oliver (actor) to the assessment request list having tried to rescue this piece from vandals at the request of the person writen about.

...just in case you have any time free.

trezjr 16:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

oops...this was supposed to go to User talk:Plange; sorry!!!

[edit] Thanks for semi-protecting Matthew Bates

However, one of the vandals has been around for a while and has reverted the page again. I've mentioned it on WP:ANI but thought as you protected the page, I'd let you know too. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Violation Of ArbCom's Ruling

FloNight, Andries is violating Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba. After this ruling, he re-inserted the link to his pesonal Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba website on his userpage Ref. Andries claimed he was going to request mediation to resolve the issue of including a defamatory Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba website on Robert Priddy's page Ref. Instead of filing a request for mediation, he re-inserted the defamatory and critical link that is not Robert Priddy's homepage (his homepage is already listed there: Ref. He refuses to listen and someone needs to talk to him. Thank you. SSS108 ^talk-email 14:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I re-inserted the link as per WP:EL "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if there is one." Robert Priddy has several homepages that should all be linked to. I will request Wikipedia:mediation for this article. Andries 16:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert Priddy has one homepage and 3 Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba websites. These are not his official homepages. Also, the ArbCom specifically said that these negative, critical websites that relate negative personal stories and contain original research against Sathya Sai Baba are not allowed: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba SSS108 ^talk-email 17:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, a person can have several homepages. E.g. one professional and one personal. Andries 17:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The link you are wanting to include in the article is not a personal homepage. It is an Anti-Sai Site that is defamatory, critical of Sathya Sai Baba and contains original research and negative personal stories. That site is all about Sathya Sai Baba. It is not about Robert Priddy. SSS108 ^talk-

^email 17:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are famous enough to have your own Wikipedia article then you can include all your homepages filled with slander of and ad hominem attacks on me, Robert Priddy, Sanjay Dadlani and others in the external link section. Andries 17:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert Priddy is not famous. His article is a stub and will never proceed beyond one because he is wholly un-notable. The only reason he started his own Wiki-page was to promote his agenda against Sathya Sai Baba. That is why you defend him. You do the same thing. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a somewhat different dispute that is also due to different interpretations of the arbcom ruling [7] It will be clear that I think that linking to a webpage with a copy of a reputable source is perfectly okay. Andries 17:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue on the Prema Sai Baba wikipedia article is not any different. Andries is promoting his Anti-Sai Site by attempting to include a reference that was taken from a Yahoo Group! A Yahoo Group is not a reliable or reputable source. Once again, Andries is attempting to duplicate information onto Anti-Sai Sites to push his Anti-Guru/Cult/SSB agenda on Wikipedia. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It it just a copy of a reputable source. Andries 17:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Cite the reputable source without linking it to an Anti-Sai Site. Do tell us why you insist on linking it to an Anti-Sai site? SSS108 ^talk-email 17:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, convenience links are convention in Wikipedia and highly recommended. I cannot find this information on another website. Andries 17:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That is why you can't link to it. It has not been sourced to a reliable or reputable reference. It is convenient for you to push your Anti-Sai agenda by unremittingly attempting to promote your Anti-Sai Site. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the ArbCom should revise the recently granted amnesty (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Amnesty) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Jossie, the problem with that is that I am only one person. There are 3 known Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba activists who are active on Wikipedia:

• Andries (talk · contribs) (Former Webmaster and current "Main Representative, Contact and Supervisor" for the largest Anti-SSB website on the world-wide-web).
• Robert Priddy — aka ProEdits (talk · contribs) aka 84.208.99.96 (talk · contribs) aka 80.111.21.76 (talk · contribs) (Webmaster for 3 Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba websites and webmaster for the second largest Anti-SSB website on the world-wide-web).
• 145.53.1.234 (talk · contribs) (Reinier Van Der Sandt: Current Webmaster for the largest Anti-SSB website on the world-wide-web).

If Andries and I are prevented from editing the Sathya Sai Baba articles, you can be certain that Andries group of Anti-Sai Activists will begin to take over where he left off. It's already begun Ref. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

These people are already covered in the ArbCom ruling Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Removal_of_poorly_sourced_negative_information (my highlight): "Negative information in an article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed without discussion. The three revert rule shall not apply to such removal. This includes links to critical websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of negative experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role." ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The ruling excludes external links used for references. Andries 16:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Andries, if you are so familiar with the ruling, why do you continue to solicit external links that go to a critical website that you are personally affiliated with Ref? This was already discussed here. Even though Flonight has not yet given a response (it appears she is travelling at the moment), you went ahead and merged the article and re-inserted the Anti-SSB link to a website you are personally affiliated with, in violation of ArbCom's ruling. This proves you are pushing your bias on Wikipedia and implies you are incapable of a rational discussion and obtaining a consensus before pushing your agenda. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of the arbcom ruling. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Proposed_decision#External_links_to_be_avoided References to reputable sources are okay as external links. Andries 17:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing the proposed decisions with The Final Decisions. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken, Andries. The caveat on the proposed decision was that "If one has or is involved with a website that can be considered a reliable source, it can and should be used as a reference. For instance, if am an editor at the Journal of American History, I should not be banned from referencing that journal." I would argue that detractor's sites and personal sites are not reliable sources for anything. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Jossi, you are mistaken the webpage that I linked to is a copy of a reliable source which is perfectly okay. Andries 18:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, Nope. The caveat by Simonp, was very clear: "This case seems far more to be a matter of using unreliable references rather than a matter of link spamming."In addition, as the site is a partisan site, the "convenience link" is only convenient to those that want to assert a certain POV. If the source is reliable, cite the source, period. The ruling in this case is very clear: don't link. Continue with this and you are surey to get dinged. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree. The webpage linked to is a copy of a reliable source. I do not see the problem. The reference is reliable. You can replace the link to another link with the same contents. Andries 18:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Andries, why are you insistent there be a link? You already said there isn't another link. Futhermore, the link you want to include comes from your Anti-Sai Website and was taken from a Yahoo Group! I will wait for others to weigh in. I think you are making a wonderful case for me regarding your bias and Anti-Sai agenda. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

An alternative that is acceptable to me would be to make the citation longer. This has the same net effect as a convenience link i.e. that the interested reader can read more. Andries 18:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to do so. If the source is reliable, it can be accessed at a public library if someone wants to verify it. You can use a short cite as per fair use guidelines of WP. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree, the object of a convenience link is to enable among others to verify the contents and to enable him/her to read more if s/he is interested. A giant citation will do the same as a convenience link. Andries 18:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You can disagree all you want. The policy of WP:V does not speak of "convenience links". Adding a link is always an option. In this case, as the material is hosted in a partisan website, and in accordance to the ArbCom ruling, it should be avoided. A long citation will have the undesirable effect of expanding the article to an inconvenient size, and it is ridiculous, IMO. No other articles use such long citations. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation but I continue to disagree with your interpretation of the arbcom ruling and your statement and using long citations as an alternative to convenience links. Andries 18:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Andries, correct me if I am wrong, but you are citing the proposed decisions. You are not citing the final decisions. You are citing a proposed decision upon which all ArbCom members did not reach consensus. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If the citation is legthened, then I will have to inevitably include the section where it talks about Sathya Sai Baba's ability to perform a large variety of miracles. I have the references sitting right in front of me. Of course, this would be "just for convenience". SSS108 ^talk-email 18:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please also see History Tab For Robert Priddy. Andries essentially filed a bogus mediation request in which he failed to inform anyone about. The other users in the request for mediation have been inactive on that page for a long time. Andries is reverting the article despite filing the request for mediation. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've issued a warning to Andries [8]. Hopefully this will resolve the matter. --Tony Sidaway 19:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What did I do wrong?

Flo. All I did was introduce cite materials here with the honest intention of elaborating on the Dominionist POV from their perspective. [9] Now FeloniousMonk and his friends have decided to pick another edit war with me. I also copyedited some paragraphs that I thought were terrible grammatically, and the term "Progressive", for example, is a loaded term that is POV, insinuating those of us who believe in traditional religion are somehow backwards. I replaced it with Liberal, which I thought was a more neutral term. I'm a bit confused with what I did wrong here.--Pravknight 21:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pravknight

Since you've taken him under your wing I'll let you deal with this. Today at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pravknight he made a attempt to imply there's support for his activities by placing his response directly above endorsements of the summary he's replying to, making it look like the endorsements were of his reply: [10] Some are calling for his blocking over this stunt, and taken with his ongoing disruption and tendentious editing, I'm inclined to agree, but I'll defer to you in this case. FeloniousMonk 00:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000

Thanks! --Tony Sidaway 11:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. The /Workshop subpage is a bit short on instructions so I thought I'd ask you. Please consider this a formal request and if needs be, copy it to the appropriate section. I'd like to request a temporary injunction preventing User:SpinyNorman from editing Honda S2000 while the arbitration case is in motion, and from reverting the article without discussion (and the consensus of other editors) once the case is closed. Zunaid 08:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Werdna

I can only speak for myself, but I've always found Werdna to be kind, intelligent and courteous. I don't know why he banned you from #wikipedia, but I can't remember having taken issue with one of his actions as a chanop before; banning a respected administrator without cause would be out of character. I also think you might be being a bit unfair about the last RfA; many people piled on voting against him there because a couple of people opposed over a comment which I actually thought was diplomatic in the circumstances. Rebecca 13:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise it before, but from your comments on my (now withdrawn) Request for adminship, it's clear that you think I bear a grudge against you of some description, or vice versa. I don't know why you think either way, but I'd like to let you know that I don't hold a grudge against you — I've just been unfortunate enough to be on the opposite side of a number of conflicts to you. I'd like to work out any issues you and I might have, so we can move beyond the issues on my requests for adminship. Also wondering if you could provide logs or something to do with the IRC incident you mentioned — I don't recall it and am mildly curious about how it happened. Thanks for your feedback on my RfA, and looking forward to your response here, I'm watchlisting your user talk page — Werdna talk criticism 06:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Glad that you want to discuss your RFA. That was the reason that I contacted you on #wikipedia. I've already had a discussion with Simetrical about his RFA. Let's let the dust settle a bit; I'll contact you on IRC in a few weeks. For now know that I agree with Kim Bruning comments to you about consensus and civility and think that Crum375 and Newyorkbrad comments should be helpful to you as well. Take care, FloNight aka Poore5 on IRC and other places on the internet.

Ah, thanks for clearing up who you were. I apologise for banning you from the channel — I saw a user speaking to me in private message, without a cloak, with an unrecognised nick, and immediately accusing me of being rude in speaking about SlimVirgin without her present. I made the (false in this case) assumption that you were one of the many channel trolls who enjoy populating and disrupting our channel, and decided to kickban you in the channel in case you were going to flood the channel. I'm apologising for the rush to judgement here. Anyway, thanks for replying, — Werdna talk criticism 04:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Could you please take a look at Mccready's edits today.Gleng 18:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dwarf

Hi again! I hate to be a bother, but is there any way to make Dwarf semi-protected? It's vandalised every few days. Adam Cuerden 22:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your kind intent. Gleng 16:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks also for taking up the Mccready issue; I won't comment unless I think the facts are being seriously misrepresented, as it's probably better to hear cool outside views, if people can take the trouble to look closely at what has been happening. I think you've acted wholly correctly though, and see the problem exactly. Gleng 19:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biography Newsletter September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 00:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV, a joke

I think Wikipedia's got to wake up here and either adhere to the neutral point of view or do the honest thing and come out of the closet as a Left of center POV site. Even scholars have begun taking note.

"Several users answered Wales’ injunctions with skepticism. Making what in mass communication research is known as a “framing” argument (Scheufele, 1999), they suggested that formal neutrality need not be violated for an article to be biased. They also pointed to the fact that even if individual articles are not biased content-wise, the Encyclopedia as a whole can still display subtler nuances of bias. For example, some pointed on the NPOV discussion page to the fact that a simple preponderance of articles describing concepts or ideas aligned with a specific ideology would naturalize that ideology at the expense of others even if the articles were perfectly neutral in tone. Or, focusing on the failings or negative aspects of a topic at the expense of its positive facets would also be a type of bias. This systemic bias appeared to some to emerge on Wikipedia not only statically, through the initial choices made by the early or active users to cover certain topics, but also dynamically, through the process by which topics are pruned out or rewritten during editing."[11]

I find it incredibly interesting how left of center POVs are somehow neutral. That's a definite contradiction in terms. Wikipedia's low level of credibility in journalism, reasearch, etc., can be traced to the fact cliques of editors control certain articles or groups of articles to ensure only their POVs survive. As far as I am concerned, I have done nothing wrong here, and if Wikipedia really is nothing more than a Left-wing version of FreeRepublic, it needs to be honest with its readers and not pretend to be neutral.--Pravknight 05:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do you like this ACW task force "Userbox"?

new ACW task force Userbox!

Fix Bayonets! 13:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kehrli

My understanding when there is a conflict between two alternate proposals that pass is that the one with the most net first choices is used. In this case, both 2 and 2.1 have the same net totals. Though I don't think I've come across this problem before, I think the fairest interpretation here is to pass 2, since it has one more total support. I doubt any arbitrators will make a fuss over this. In the other case, 1.1 is the clear winner with more net first choices. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 16:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella

Thank you for the notice. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin question

I've noticed conversations concerning User:Gleng. Have you considered asking him if he would consider an administration position. This editor is too valuable to be lost. His edits are excellent and his demeanor is above reproach. I would ask him, but don't feel qualified. --Dematt 22:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

you've got to be kidding. This user's almost sole activity on WP is chiro. You are a chiro. check out this bullying edit of his [12] -- Mccready

Flonight, you are welcome to read the chiropractic article. Please make your comments as I would appreciate your input. Thanks for you time. --Dematt 15:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dematt here. Gleng, like many editors of the chiropractic article, is chiropractic skeptic. Yet, he always edits and discusses edits in a manner which most cooperative with non chiropractic skeptics. McCready's accusations are unwarranted and untrue. Gleng edits on many articles other than chiropractic. McCready's example is Gleng reverting yet another one of McCready's undiscussed major revision which now has lead to yet another major disruption caused by McCready. I was hoping that this 30-day ban would have some effect on McCready. Apparently, he is choosing to ignore it. Levine2112 17:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I still haven't seen any ban that can be considered effective. When is it going to happen? -- Fyslee 20:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Gleng has also been great on pseudoscience. WP is fortunate to have editors like him. --Jim Butler^(talk) 14:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pseduoscientists have strong foothold in WP

Re your community ban on me (your interpretation of the "community". Take out the self confessed chiros and acus and how many supports have you left? This is an organised attack from the usual suspects. I'm surprised that you are so gullible. My edits on the pseudoscience page itself have been good and no one has said otherwise. In fact I've been congratulated - even by the usual suspects. My use of popups has been explained many times, but once again - I'm on a very slow dialup connection and it saves several minutes. To make it clear again: How many supports are not chiros or acus? What then is the balance. This says a lot about the immaturity of WP. I await your response. You have my email address but proceeded to try me in absentia. Charming. Mccready 14:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Flo. Please see my response to Mccready on his Talk page.

Like most scientists am sparing with the term "pseudoscience" because it is both offensively perjorative and irredeemably imprecise. My resource is PubMed, this vast repository of the scientific literature spanning all disciplines and many languages, in all this trove only 71 articles even use the word, of these only 11 are reviews [13], and mostly concern the historical debates about now rejected areas of science. Scientists deal with the merits of arguments, case by case; they do not categorise by prejudice, either arguments or those who make them; to call something a pseudoscience or someone a pseudoscientist are either gratuitous insults or they are serious charges, worthy of close and careful argument, of meticulous rigor and precision, to justify what might be seen as a libel.Gleng 15:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks Flo

Hey Flo, thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I really appreciate your support and your comments. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] September Esperanza Newsletter

For your reading pleasure, the newest Esperanza newsletter can be found at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter. —Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, Freakofnurture, and Titoxd 04:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quick technical question

On the motion in the Arbcom case, there are currently 9 active Arbs (none recused), which makes the majority 5. The current vote is 5-1; is this a majority? David | Talk 11:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asking for your opinion on/review of something

I remembered from your RfA that you were a member of a Wikiproject concerning pedophilia on Wikipedia. As I recalled, you also had kids, so I headed over to your userpage to confirm. I thought, given your perspective as a mother and as someone with apparently some knowledge of how pedophiles work, you might be able to give your input on a new policy proposal. Not having children myself (though I would like to), I thought it might be a good idea to solicit the input of someone whose opinion I value and with a better perspective on the issue. Am I completely off-base? Does the policy help correct the problems I think it helps correct? Captainktainer * Talk 20:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 67.1.121.5

This IP has been determined to be FourthAve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who is currently banned for 1 year per this ruling. Because of his evasion, his ban timer should be reset to one year after his most recent edit from this IP, and the evasion recorded under "logs of blocks and bans" as well as his user page.

[edit] You have the job from hell!

D'you know Flo, I would loose my licence if ever I made a comment like that in a British or Italian official enquiry. Still think I'm paranoid? Giano 18:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom Clerk task

FloNight: Since you were the Clerk who closed the St Christopher's case, I think you are probably the logical person to update the note about a pending ArbCom case at the top of Talk:St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine. I'd do it myself, but don't want to be accused of some form of tampering, as there are various sensitivities associated with that article. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Savage vandalism.

Hi...you said contact you if I ran into any problems, so, guess what, here I am!!!

This user, User:Kcansur721, and others have been vandalizing the Ben Savage page with persistent death claims for the past week.

It is already semi-protected.

Can you, please, just keep an eye on these parties doing the damage.

I've been trying to clean up the page.

Thanks!!!

trezjr 01:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St Christopher arbitration

>>Hello :-) I updated the message at the top of the article talk page. [14]Is this what you were after me to do? FloNight 01:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)<<

Generically, exactly, although I'm not sure whether "single-purpose accounts are restrained" in bold at the top of the page is a little too confrontational for this group as opposed to just a link to the arbitration page. Or maybe the link just gets deleted when the case is over. You might want to ask Tony Sidaway or one of the other clerks what's the standard procedure for cases revolving around individual articles (as opposed to a particular user's conduct). Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Flo, I think we need S-Protect[15], and your famous magic wand may not be enough this time ;^) Crum375 22:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This has now degenerated into a series of legal threats on the talk page (the most serious and concrete of which have been reverted but are visible near the top of the history). I've alerted Guy who has been the admin most active in dealing with this situation up to this point, but this may also call for a referral to the Office. Newyorkbrad 23:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Flo, thanks for the S-P; but should you also add the S-P template? Crum375 01:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marsden Arb

I dropped a block on Arthur Ellis today as noted on the RFAR:Rachel Marsden talk page. Don't know if you want to make it a clerk note on the main page or not. Twelve hours shouldn't interefere with the case presentation but if youthink it's not appropriate at this time you can unblock. See also WP:AE. Thatcher131 19:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be fine. Arbs will check the log of the other case. I'm more concerned about his behavior. While the new case is open he has no motivation to go away. FloNight 20:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dwarf

Thanks! Was just about to go to bed, and am kind of out of it, but wanted to let you know I got the message. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to merge Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF article

I have started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamation of the merge begins here. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks. Levine2112 00:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vitalism

Can you take a look at the editing of Vitalism? There is a lot of uncooperative behavior coming from user:KrishnaVindaloo, and it's similar to what you've dealt with in the past. The people of good faith are becoming fatigued... Thanks! --Travisthurston 03:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HI

I miss you. Sorry school keeps me so busy. I miss Wikipedia so, but I'm also glad to have "kicked the habit" (cough, cough) in a sense. I'm moving now, but perhaps once I'm settled in my new place I can take on some duties again. But I mostly want to work on articles related to the stuff I'm working on in school (all psych stuff).

Anyway, cheers, and I miss the old wild days! ...not! --DanielCD 03:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great policy

Thanks for the suggestion, and you're welcome to your opinion of me. However, I'm not trying to force policy on others, as you can see from the history, the proposal I started at WP:NNOT has never been constrewed as guideline - while pages like WP:NN and WP:DDV have been forced upon us as guidelines. I'm of the opinion that there are people in this world that try to do right, but abuse their powers and do lots of wrong as well. You probably think i'm one, and I can only point to my actions here as proof that i'm not. However, I try to do what I can to stop the abuse of power - which is a great problem not only wikipedia, but in the world at large, in every organization on the planet. Fresheneesz 21:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science Collaboration of the month

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Month, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is Carbon. You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name!

NCurse _work 06:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Problem

Hello there, lass! Hate to bother you again, but did I mess up the image in Engaged (play)? It's not seeming to load properly. Just discovered the Library of Congress has a lot of useful copyright-free stuff. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. A few more reloads and it sorted itself. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Annoying

I see you've been trying to talk to him, but Fresh is still making snide remarks and personal attacks with most of his talk page comments. Do you think you can get through to him and get him to be civil for a chance? >Radiant< 23:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I left another comment on his talk page. --FloNight 01:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Hello. Thank you for your brief note informing me of this. Unfortunately, this is a not a good time for me to take care of this as I have things to do in the real world. Is there some sort of a time limit as to when evidence etc might be presented? I think that I might have time on Wednesday or perhaps earlier, but it might not be until the beginning of next week. Is this a problem? Thank you.Jean-Thierry Boisseau 08:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time Scale

Thanks! Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

FloNight, thank you for the comments you posted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:EDO_Corporation. Would really appreciate your assistance on keeping the article it supports balanced as it continues to be switched to an 'unencyclopedic' page. - EDOtruth1

Talk archives [edit] Mail Hi Flo, Please check your mail. Thanks, Crum375 21:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC) [edit] Biases Just because a particular faction happens to take the same side on all of the same issues doesn't mean anything to me as far as the RfC is concerned. Perhaps you should reflect upon your prejudices Flo. Secularism is a prejudice. i don't know if that describes you or not, but it most definitely describes those who put out this RfC. For the meantime, I intend to keep the bulk of my editing to religious pages where I can get some peace. I don't respect the RfC as being anything other than a lynch mob. And I find it funny that the same group of admins and editors who have endorse my spurious RfC have a demonstrated habit from my research of ganging up on Christian editors. FeloniousMonk, Guettarda,Jim62sch,Killer Chihuauhua, Jossi, etc. seem to always run in a pack, and they always choose to bully Christians from what I have seen. If any of you think I am learning anything from the RfC, I'm not. It's tactics such as this that cheapen Wikipedia and make people scoff at it, and that's why I'm intent upon reforming the rules to improve the standard of ethical conduct. If I win, I win and likewise if I lose.--Pravknight 20:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)