User talk:Nateland/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: This is an archive of mostly nowadays irrelevant discussion that took place on my talk page from January 6, 2007, through March 23rd, 2007. This page would probably have its greatest use for researching the dispute over the adolescent sexuality article and its numerous (as of April 7th) spin-offs created by User:Illuminato

  • STATS:
  • Dater de.
  • First Date In Archive.
  • Month = 1 binary 1 trinary
  • Day = 110 (binary) 20 (trinary)
  • Year = 11111010111 (binary) 2212021 (trinary)
  • Dater dernier.
  • Last Date in Archive
  • Month = 11 (binary) 10 (trinary)
  • Day = 10111 (binary) 2012 (trinary)
  • Year 11111010111 (binary) 2212021 (trinary)
ARCHIVED MATERIAL BEGINS BELOW

Contents

[edit] Greetings

Welcome!

Hello, Nateland, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Xiner (talk, email) 00:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Adolescence

Your recent edit to Adolescence (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 01:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits on Adolescence

Hi Nateland. I understand how you feel, but please understand that few will come to your defense when you cannot keep your cool. We must remain civil at all times, even against vandals. Xiner (talk, email) 02:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are getting so upset over the editing on the Adolescence article. I'm not defending what Dr Sax says, but you can not simply delete it because you don't like it. Doubleday is one of the worlds largest book publishers, it should be no problem for you to get a copy of his book at a bookstore or at the library and read for yourself what he has to say. As I said on the talkpage, if you have evidence that refutes him, by all means WP:Be Bold and edit the article. However, I might reccomend that you read his book. It may change your mind, and teach you a few new things (both on this topic and many others). Finally, you can not simply delete text because you disagree with it, or because someone else altered what you said. Just remember that every time you make an edit that WP reminds you "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." (check out the bottom of the page the next time you edit one.) Happy editing to you, --Illuminato 04:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Nateland, I think you should post your text on the article's talk page, so that stylistic and POV issues can be ironed out in a central place (e.g., stats from the other side, don't capitalize words for emphasis). Illuminato, I disagree that we should rely on one authority for the statements in our articles. Xiner (talk, email) 21:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Nateland, you said on the adolescence talk page that you know you shouldn't be deleting the information you disagree with, yet you continue to do it. I know you are young, and that you are new to WP, but now I know that you are aware it is wrong, so please stop. Thanks, and happy editing --Illuminato 00:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please be more careful

Nateland, please be more careful in your edits. On the adolescent sexuality page in one of you edits you wrote: "According to Ponton Lynn, a proponent against sex between adolescents." There are several things wrong with this sentence. To begin with, it is not a complete sentence; it lacks a verb. Secondly, her name is Lynn Ponton, not Ponton Lynn. Also, I'm not quite sure what a proponent against is. I think you mean an opponent. Finally, and most importantly, if you have ever read any of her books you would know that she is not opposed to consensual sex between older adolescents, provided that they are prepared for it based on the guidelines she sets out in one of her books. You can not simply ascribe a position to her when you have clearly never read anything shes ever written. In the future, please be more careful and do your research before you post. WP is not a place for you to place your own opinions on any topic. --Illuminato 22:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I know what I'm doing, I've read the discussion. You can't order me to do anything, (oh, what did you call him?), bucko. Don't waste our time and vandalize wikpedia with blank sections. if you want info on there about religious views and other countries views, then add them. dont put stupid blank sections it.

[edit] Reference

Hi there, I see you have some problems with references... please test them on the sandbox instead than using a live article ;) also, you may wish to search on the Help:Link section of the help. Please do not use html tags ! --Raistlin 23:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 03:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] India

Evening, neighbour. In response to your question on the Homosexuality page about India: the Indian Penal seems to imply that homosexuality is illegal. "Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with [life imprisonment], which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine... Penetration is sufficient to constitute [this]." There's more information on the Homosexuality in India article. Also, Indians are mainly (80.5%) Hindus.

You find "Jew" offensive? Why's that? -- User:Wozocoxonoy 19:58 10/01/2007 (GMT)

[edit] Copyright Warning: Saturday, January 20, 2007

Please Respect Copyright!
You have vandalized the Adolescent sexuality article by violating Wikipedia’s Copyright policy—your changes which violated copyright were removed. Please remember that everything you find on the Internet is copyrighted, and so you cannot copy and paste from somewhere else to here. This is a severe thing—copyright is generally very strictly enforced in any country with Copyright law.

When you want to write about something you’ve just read, please do not let what you’ve read dictate what you’re going to say. Using your own words is the best way to avoid seeing this message again. Thank you!

This notice was placed here by Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 08:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
Please see your response to your question on my talk page. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 08:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone else here (Sopoforic) added some helpful information to the topic on my talk page. That might help out a bit. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 08:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

NOTICE: This dispute has already been resolved via the use of paraphrasing and alternative links to the data.

[edit] Re: Final Warning

nateland, you are not an administrator. You have no authority to place that warning on my talk page. You can not ban me from editing any more than I can ban you. The edits I am making are not a personal vendetta. I am not out ot get you. I am just trying to make WP better. Please read the comments on the talk page where I outline some of the problems with your version of the article. I didn't include them all, as I am not out to embarrass you. Please try to keep your cool. --Illuminato 20:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know i AM trying to keep my cool, and ANYONE can report a 3RR violation it says so right on the guidelines page, trust me, i had good reason to report you. quit fussing, it's REALLY annoying.


And no, you're doing what I did early on in wikipedia, recklessly screwing up the adolescent sexuality page just so that you can inject your own biased 'facts'.

This is my opinion and that's FINAL. Nateland 20:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 22:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

yes i know, i still sometimes forget to.


[edit] Adolescent sexuality article

Thanks for your comment. The story started with unbalanced additions taking over the adolescent psychology section of the adolescence article. Moving it to a separate article hopefully will eventually allow something more balanced to develop. I just added a legal aspects section, but a religious aspects section would be useful in the future. Fight the battles on limited fronts, withdraw when you need, you can always come back later. Regarding Islam, I am not very knowledgable - I dropped a note at the Talk:Islamic sexual jurisprudence page. Paul foord 01:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Keeping in mind WP:AGF, please consider bringing the articles to WP:AFD for merging. Xiner (talk, email) 21:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It’s your talk page…

… but it is considered to be in bad taste to remove items from it without going through the process of archiving them. Mind you, that’s not an official policy, but do remember that your user and user talk pages are not your property—they’re still property of the community. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 03:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


Notice has been deleted due to ongoing disputes. This notice was placed here by Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 06:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC). |}

Technically, this is the second final warning that you have received from me. However, you removed the first one; it is only fair for me to put it back as you are harassing Wikipedians. Please say what you need to say to them nicely, or do not say anything to them at all. You are, at this time, being reported for acts of harm against the environment we are all sharing. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 06:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

despite what you think, I am NOT harrasing wikipedians, I simply told one of them a couple of times to clarify and be honest about the edits they made, and the other one i accidently thought had uneedingly reverted one of my edits and i asked them to be more careful in the future. Although when i realized i had forgot to login i promptly posted an apology to their talk page.

I find your constant picking me out for civility warnings as undue Harrasment via templates.

Why don't you ask those users if they thought they were being harrased?, BEFORE going onto my talk page and posting civility warnings... i am Simply reminding some users to discuss changes on the talk page, and to just let that edit rest for the night until more people can review it instead of reverting it back to it's original state.

See talk:adolescent sexuality for more details

Yours truly, Nateland 06:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In case you missed it on my talk page…

I have only given you two. You have henceforth been referred for outside review by a neutral third party; failing the effectiveness of that, as per Wikipedia policy, you will be referred to the RfC queue to be looked at under rather heavy scrutiny. Please, play nice, or do not play at all. You are being disruptive and rude, and I take extreme offense to these activities, particularly against other third parties (such as 66.91.115.201, who you were unnecessarily rude to). Remember, you do not own any of the information here, and you cannot make absolute demands of other users.
Believe you me, I am quite angry at you right now: I have managed to waste nearly a full day trying to sort things out since your name came across the list of potential vandals. I certainly could have been helping other Wikipedians and being (I should hope) more productive. You do not see me shouting at you. In fact, I am attempting to be quite kind. However, enough is enough. You will be reviewed before long by an administrator.
Kind regards. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 06:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
In addition, I have only this to say: Harassment involves tone of voice, and frequency of contact. You have contacted far too many people with an offensive tone over the past two days. When I say that you are acting in a manner “unbecoming a Wikipedia editor,” I didn’t mean that you were being nice and handing flowers to everyone. I have asked you to calm down multiple times in the past two days. You are letting your temper become disruptive in this community, and that is not something that I will sit back and watch without at the very least letting you know what you are doing. You will not make friends like this—here or IRL. Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 06:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Meh. Pardon the third alteration for this block; but I meant to point out to you that despite your “view” of warnings, they are required by Wikipedia policy before attempting to recruit outside help or administration to solve a problem. I am sure that you can see why: It is unethical to report someone without at least notifying them that you are doing so, and without appropriate warnings and attempts at a resolution to the situation. I have nothing else to say—sorry, tiredness is kicking my rear end. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 06:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] look!

I was not unnecassarily rude to that IP.

Maybe i said a few 'bad' words, but that was only to ghet my point across in a more easily understandable way... swears are.. .after all.... some of the most emotionally charged and multi-use words in the english language.

Trust me, i'm angry at YOU as well, I've wasted almost a full day trying to GET YOU to understand I am not harrasing people, In one day i've lost countless hours because of your constant harrasing me...

If it's anyone whom I think needs to be reviewed it's YOU!. you have NO right to post an uncivility warning because I reported a user for a 3RR violation.

Maybe i didn't put down EVERY template for that, but i have only been editing for a few weeks now (seriously at least and not just occasional spell checks).

So Please try to be understanding, i hope we can reach an agreement.

you're wasting MY time and I AM wasting yours in return, it's the logical consequence of accusing me of uncivility.

You were unnecessarily rude to that IP address. Your language and tone were abusive.
Emotionally charged language is not language that will solve any mature, adult dispute. It will take time, but you will learn that when you are required to become a productive member of society. You may certainly ask for a review of my behavior if you wish; I have attempted to be as kind and rational as possible with you as one possibly can be. You’ve no right to demand that anyone visit an article’s talk page before being bold and editing, nor do you have any right to bite off the head of a newcomer and potentially scare him or her off.
Your actions are illogical at best, and are incongruent with the goals of this project at worst. I seriously believe that you need to review the five basic rules of Wikipedia, and gain some respect for your fellows and peers. You have real chutzpah to treat people like this on a public site.
I’ve no wish to be harmful, nor do I have any wish to take out any of my anger and frustration on you—or anyone else for that matter. We all have a more important job to be doing, but that job cannot be done with emotionally-flared words being flung around at people as if they were nothing at all. Emotionally charged words only serve to expose a personal weakness in the person who uses them, as well as attempt to ignite personal weaknesses in others who receive them. They cause conflict, warring, and even harsher, more emotionally charged things to be flung back and forth. It is an illogical process to even begin.
The only person whose time is being wasted here is me—I did not ask you to be rude, or infringe on the copyrights of others. The time that you are spending being defensive isn’t even necessary—nobody here is attacking you, and I, for one, have no wish to attack or make enemies of anyone—here on Wikipedia, or anywhere else on the Internet or in real life, for that matter.
However, there is a certain moral duty that anyone who witnesses ill-treatment of others must step up to. You were introduced to me because you were flagged as having made a copyright violation and vandalizing an article. And now, we are here because you are flinging emotionally charged words around. All that is happening here is that I am asking you to behave in a civil fashion in accordance with the policy that asks the same of you. I am not asking all that much; I am giving you the respect of being civil on my end. Please return that respect. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 07:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, i understand what you think, But i've spent 14 hours and 10 minutes as of now in front of this computer, endlessly trying to propose compromises and resolve disputes.

I'll soon be going to bed as it's 2:13 A.M. where i live and i want to be able to actually get up tommorow.

However, like I said, i mean't NO maliciousness whatsoever and was not using those words against that user. I simply used it to state my annoyance after (By then) approximately 10 or so hours of unending word on this article.

forgive if I made a mistake but I think that once in a while an exceptiopn can be made. And no I am not going to report you for your behaviour as I don't find it malicious and I understanf what you are thinking, so I am simply trying to clear it up.

I was simply reminding that user to be more careful and I hoped that by using emotional words It would go across easier, and apparently it did because he has stopped reverting. 9Or he logged off etc.) And i must say that i only asked people check the talk page is because 99% of the time they jusy IMMEDIATELY revert without even discussing it or clearly and/or honestly outlining their revisions.

If you check the talk page you'll see BOATLOADS of my explanations, none of which (As of recently, i've tried to be more careful) are substantial and done without a consensus, I only did what I thought would be useful for people to review in the morning, people HAVE complained about the lead in the past,

anyways, this is MY explanation of my actions. -Hope it satifies you Nateland 07:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been keeping up with the entire situation as it has unrolled, watching diffs and looking at their associated log entries. That is why I am confronting you on this issue.
My guess is that your words scared the user away. The implication behind them to a new user to Wikipedia is that there is some sort of elitism going on and that Wikipedians are by default arrogant. Quite a few of my friends have been scared off by similar things occurring here, so I have some knowledge of those goings-on and the impression that they have been left with is that Wikipedia is a drama-field like LiveJournal is known for.
When an article is reverted, there is a reason. Do not engage in a revert war or an edit war; it merely makes you look bad for participating in it. As you have seen, I have backed away from the article completely, because I refuse to participate in such games. I can certainly understand the frustrations in attempting to work on certain controversial articles here. I have been in computer culture for a long time, and the people here like to write the word UNIX as Unix, and believe it or not, that in itself is a controversy that has been ongoing for some years. However, it was originally UNIX, and the trademark is UNIX, and so UNIX is the way that it is supposed to be written. Nonetheless, I won’t copyedit Unix to UNIX, because the consensus here is that Unix is seemingly easier to read than UNIX, even though there is 30+ years of precedent for calling it UNIX.
My point here is that the frustration must never be taken out on others, through language, word choice, or anything else. When I feel myself getting frustrated to that point, I walk away from the computer or I start working on a computer program or something—reputation gets around quickly on the Internet, which isn’t as large as you think it might be. That having been said, it has taken me years to clean up the arrogance of some of my choice words that I put out there as a teenager, and have regretted those words ever since. I am still working on removing some of it, though all of it is not possible to remove. Today, that is more true than it ever was before, with wiki databases saving every last bit of revision history. It is a big control system as is used in software development today for controlling changes to enterprise network configurations or software source code.
I understand that you’ve no malicious intentions. That is why I am spending the time here. If I thought your intentions were of ill-will and malice, we would not be having this conversation—I would instead be going all the way up the ladder to get a ban set into place. It is my hope that the time here has been well spent, and that any formal actions will not be necessary. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 07:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ok fine.

Oh... SHIT (Pardon me) You're right, it Could have scared off the user... never thought it would though considering how likely it is that user has gone onto other sites where 'uncivility' reigns in the extreme (Take the Newgrounds forums for instance). Once you've passed That test, you should be ready for A LOT of stuff (Except shock sites, those can always tend to scare or disgust..)

Anyways, yes i shouldn't have been in that edit war, now it's protected and someone stuck THESE OBVIOUSLY POV lines right into it before it got protected.

Most experts agree that "teens - and preteens - are too young to fathom the consequences, both physical and emotional, of their [sexual] behavior

Hech.. now if That doesn't cut the cake in two, I don't know what will. I'll wait a while for my proposals to be answered, and then i'll contact the person who protected it and request to do some minor editing to take out sentences like the above.

Most experts agree that "teens - and preteens - are too young to fathom the consequences, both physical and emotional, of their [sexual] behavior

Now THAT'S scary to think a weasel-word like that is stuck on a page on a highly controversial topic that is a link from the first result if you search for adolescence in google....

Anyways, looks like it'll be awhile before I can do any editing on the article.. I'll talk to you later, Nateland 17:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adolescent sexuality

Thank you for your interest, Nateland. The idea of article protection is that the article is not to be touched until the situation is resolved through discussion and editing can occur harmoniously again. If you feel that the article is inaccurate, biased, or anything else, let me know so I can tag the article appropriately. Until then, your best bet is to talk things out on the talk page. If it gets very serious, consider reviewing the guidelines at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Let's hope discussion goes well! (Don't forget to assume good faith throughout the process, even if you're convinced the other guy's a jerk.) ★MESSEDROCKER★ 18:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're right, partially.

For me to say 'most experts' was to insert weasel words. I was tired and didn't think before I wrote that. I should let the experts speak for themselves. I read the webpage you provided, and could not find where AFY "fully supports allowing adolescents to make sexual decisions on their own." Thus, I took out that claim. If you can show me where they do fully support it, I would be amenable to putting it back in. You may also note that the article was further edited after mine.

If you read the guidelines in WP:Lead you will see that the lead is supposed to be a summary of what is in the rest of the article. You might disagree what is in there, but that is what the article said and I believe my lead accurately summarized it. Finally, Nateland, if you really spent 13 hours in front of the computer yesterday then I would suggest you find some other hobbies for your own well being. It was a Saturday, for Pete's sake. Go out with your friends, read a book, take a jog. Spending that much time in front of the screen can not be healthy. --Illuminato 19:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] adolescent sexuality page protection

Hi, you may have noticed that the adolescent sexuality article has been protected from further edits. It seems to me that the lead section seems to be the biggest sticking point here, so I want you to know that I have a proposal for moving forward in a peaceable manner. You are welcome to participate. --Illuminato 01:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Read my post on your page, and YES i am willing to participate if it's reasonable (We should get some more people involved though, wait a couple of days or a few weeks so that we can get a good viewpoint from the numerous people who have helped out on this article a fair amount recently)

[edit] India

nateland,

I added a references section on my india page so you should be able to look at the sources now. Also, you should know that generally you don't add things - such as the broken links template - to other people's user spaces. --Illuminato 02:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well EXCUUUUZE meO_>

Sorry, but I thought that it would help if it was there, as YOU or anyone else who saw it and fixed the problem would have fixed a major problem with sourcing.

Although I am glad you managed to fix it. And... if you don't like me posting on your page (Assuming it's not like a wiki abiding article because it's a proposed layout in another user's subpages because it's THEIR page, I think that fixing things as simple as that with a proposed article could also GREATLY improve peoples opinion of the proposal when they view it... reading an article with broken links is kind of 'suspicious' no matter WHAT the content (at least on wikipedia where bias, pov, and all sorts of chaos are locked in a never ending struggle with the forces of wikipedia guidelines and followers of that sacred doctrine*)

Then I apologize and will try not to do it again unless I have a REALLY REALLY good reason, this works both ways see, if you find a bunch of broken links in my subpages prototype proposal article and post a broken links template, I won't mind, i'll simply try and fix it myself and WHEN it gets fixed i'll remove the template.. end of story.


If there IS a policy on this then forgive, I havn't seen one regarding subsections of user pages, in fact. I havn't seen one until this date.

Footnotes:

  • This will probably NOT become the topic of a movie, book, or whatever.... although it gives me an idea....

Nateland 04:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] compromise text

I have proposed a compromise lead on the adolescent sexuality page. You can find it here, its the 2nd one down. I tried to include your thoughts on it. What do you think? --Illuminato 00:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article spinouts

Nateland, When I created the articles on the separate countries they were not POV forks. They were spinouts from the main article, much like the Adolescent Sexuality article is a spinout of the main adolescence article. Please check out the WP guidelines on spinouts. It says:

Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique.

I hope this clears it up for you. --Illuminato 22:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 20:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] == Give me a break... ==

- - What do you take me for? An idiot?? - - The article is not even remotely long enough to warrant spin-offs. - And as far as I know there is NO sectino on India, and if we moved the POV to a MAIN ARTICLE on adolescent sexuality controversies than the time it would take for it to become too 'long' would be increased DRAMATICALLY. - - Please, don't try to use WP:guidelines to try and deflect everything I have to say, ESPECIALLY if they're as weakly founded as the idea 'that the article is too long'. - - I know what your views are, And i might not agree with them, nor respect them really. But I WON'T stand for ANY views interfering with the progress of this article. - - You might think that I'm wrong and you're right, but let me put this up for a vote in the adolescent sexuality:talk - - PLUS! considering the time that you spent on trying to keep the article your way AMAP - i'm suprised to see you running off and creating 'new' articles... - - Why give up ALL that hard work eh?, especially since it resulted in a protection being placed on the article. - - Don't you want to resolve it AQAP?

[edit] Re: Hey!, some more news on the talk page etc.. REALLY important!.

First off, I cannot stress enough how important it is to assume that people are acting with good intentions. It's very unkosher to think that people do things because they're bad. It's very unlikely that he did it as an act of censorship -- people sometimes blank their talk pages as a form of archiving. Even if he did it for the point of censorship, you shouldn't run around shouting that because there's no evidence that it's true and it'll get him upset, causing further problems. In the meantime, I hope that there continues to be constructive discussion on that talk page. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 21:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My talk page

Nateland,

Thank you for your concern, but I wasn't censoring anyone. I am well aware that previous versions of my talk page can be found in the history. I wanted to clean up the page a bit, so I put the older discussion into an archive. I had meant to put a link to the archive on the page at that time, but I must have forgotten. I thank you for the reminder, but before you write on my page again please take a deep breath first. I don't need you throwing around wild accusations. Ask me why I did it before you accuse me of censorship, and don't throw out threats of appeals to higher authorities or say you will vandalize my talk page. I'd also like to add that after all the names and vitriol you have spewed, I don't think you should be accusing me of acting in poor taste. Remember, we must always WP:Assume good faith. --Illuminato 21:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As well as WP:AGF, we also have WP:DUCK. I think the splitting of the articles is disruptive to Wikipedia, and all the articles should be put up for WP:RFC or WP:AFD, where I'm sure they'll be merged back into one article. Xiner (talk, email) 22:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

You have been referred for your conduct. I hope it will improve now that this step has been taken.

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 01:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sigh...

Same IP address that caused me problems earlier, now that user failed to sign it.

And posted the message when ANOTHER user 'reported' me... so sickeningly annoying.

Ugh... I think i'll work on some other articles for a while. (But i'm keeping an eye on those specific interest articles) Nateland 01:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oh the irony

You didn't sign your comment asking me to sign mine.

[edit] A cup of tea has been poured for you

☻ Someone has poured you tea ☺

--Illuminato 08:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The template is not working for some reason. See A nice cup of tea. --Illuminato 01:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nateland. I'm just letting you know that I have removed your comment from Wikipedia:A_nice_cup_of_tea_and_a_sit_down, because in my opinion it is in violation of the guidelines at the top of the page, which states that users should not write "Anything that is not 100% positive". Your comment about Illuminato was not a positive comment - in fact, going to "almost any length to prove his point as valid, and useful. No matter how much opposition there is too it," is a negative trait. If you disagree with me, you are welcome to reinstate the comment, however I encourage you to think of a new compliment that is unambiguously positive. Thanks for your time, and thanks for using WP:TEA to try and generate goodwill. - Borofkin 01:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV/bias/non-neutrality/crazy

I totally agree with you and I will help you to resolve this issue HerkelTheBRAVE!

[edit] Destroying work

nateland,

I know you don't like to have your age interjected into this, but I think this is an instance when how young you are shows. Your writing skills just are not there yet. This is not a knock against you - I am sure as you grow older they will improve. As an example of why the previous version was better, consider a portion of what you wrote: "As with any sort of mutual sexual activity. With people, animals, or dangerous objects and/or liquids and gases." If you were to show them to your English teacher I am sure he would tell you that neither of those are sentences. They lack verbs and thus are fragments. You can see why the previous version was better written. You will also notice that when I reverted it I tried to incorporate your additions.--Illuminato 23:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrarium

If you want to create an article for the book - start it as Terrarium (book) and change the link on the author's page. Please don't mess - up the Terrarium redirect page. Also, I think that User:Hadal has been inactive since last summer. Good luck. Vsmith 03:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility

Hi Nateland. Please note that while it is very much frowned upon to blank one's own talk page, it is not criminal. I will, however, take a look at the article and see if it can be improved. Xiner (talk, email) 16:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nateland. While I agree with your latest edit, I was wondering if you could perhaps tone down your edit summary. Even if the other party were a vandal, you must maintain composure at all time. Xiner (talk, email) 21:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ya, Bernard Lewis is still alive

You'll hear about when he dies --17:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)