User talk:The Cunctator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An older version of this page, previously located at "Talk:The Cunctator", has been moved (with history) to User_talk:The Cunctator/Old.

Contents 1 Funny 2 Old pages 3 santorum 4 encyclopedia 5 Commentary 6 Re "encyclopedic" 7 The Magician 7.1 Request for hard ban on Theresa Knott and DavidWBrooks 7.2 Request for hard ban on Lord_Kenneth 8 New Main Page 9 AC votes 10 Memorial 11 Why remove Torch? 12 arbcom 13 pussy cat 14 Admin Nomination 15 Anon reversion wars 16 Arbitration committee: Mr-Natural-Health 17 We need to finish up JRR 1 18 Secondary education in Japan 19 Blast from the Past 20 Thanks for the comment... 21 Evidence provided on PolishPoliticians 22 Greetings from Charles Stewart 22.1 Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies 23 Hurra, hurra, but where is the Memex? 24 Year of force pullout 25 Anthony DiPierro 26 "Terrorism" straw poll 27 A general note to arbitrators 28 Judaism / WWII 29 Arbitration 30 Netoholic 31 New Gzornenplatz et al proposed temp order 32 JoeM 33 User pages left in main namespace 34 Article Licensing 35 Happy You're A Candidate 36 Arbitration 37 One Question 38 Main namespace cleanup 39 Andy Kaufman lives! (I think we have all been tricked big time.) 40 Dearly departed 41 Rider-Waite images 42 Retro! cool. 43 Bosstown 44 the issue of school articles 45 Just a note 46 History of the Current Events page 47 List of warez groups on VfD 48 Local madness 49 Welcome back! 50 Jack Abramoff 50.1 Vandalism 51 BTW 52 regarding the abramoff page 53 Questionable. 54 mod userbox 55 The Nation 56 Anon corrections 57 Account Deletion 58 User:Ariele 58.1 Restored my indef block 59 Naftasib 60 verifiability 61 illuminatus 62 Merger of Iraq Conflict and 2003 invasion of Iraq articles 63 origin of Wikipedia's article on scientology 64 Opinion 65 September 2006 Atlantic Monthly article 66 Welcome! 67 The unofficial motto of the VCN 68 Board election 69 the first 70 Deletion review 71 Benford's Law of Controversy 72 An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Ayles Ice Shelf, was selected for DYK! 73 Daigacon 74 Chris Ayres 75 whoa 76 Whoa 76.1 Why Not 77 Why? 78 BJAODN 79 Your undeleted orphaned fair use images 80 Template: dubious 81 82 Agree about the ugliness 83 Board elections 2007 84 You're (in)famous! Kind of. 85 Nsusa 86 AfD nomination of Helvenston et al. v. Blackwater Security 87 I put Benford's law of controversy in for afd 88 Religious Nationalism 89 Userboxes

[edit] Funny

Since I am only an Ip adress I can't edit that page but I found something that could be added to the deleted nonsense and vandalism page. I believe it is pretty funny. From the GI Joe page. Here it is: Jihad Joe It is believed that Americans are becoming more ethnocentric with simple western culture toys. They know half the story with the G.I. Joe toys. To combat this increasing rise in western pride a new toy line is being released by Al Qaeda Inc. It is Jihad Joe, a real terrorist Hero! It is hoped that this toy will teach tolerance and understanding. This scaled down follower of Wahhabism comes with his own Ak-47, RPG, and suicide bomber kit that actually works! He comes with in voice recording that says phrases such as “Hurray for the blessed verse of swords" and the ever classic "Death to America!"

This toy will be sold wherever a Fatwa is issued or people of the book need to be placed in a dhimmi can be found. The next toy will be Fascist Frank a real authoritarian government hero.

[edit] Old pages

Good work about subjects that interest me! How about adding a few words about yourself to this page? --Pinkunicorn

---

You're doing an absolutely amazing job on the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack pages. --Pinkunicorn

---

I totally agree with Pinkunicorn--wonderful job on these pages. --LMS

---

Twelve hours straight on the website? No wonder it's getting over 1,000 pageviews a day from various other websites that have linked to the 911 pages. Great job, C, thanks. --LMS

---

You do realise your nom-de-plume will be zapped when the Roman historians get round to writing about one Quintus Fabius Maximus, don't you? ;- ) sjc

---

Cunctator - I just wanted to say thanks for the guidance on the "nowiki" feature - it was appreciated. - chrz ManningBartlett

---

Hey Cunctator, we might disagree on other stuff, but I have to say your continuing work on the 9/11 pages and the aftermath (such as renaming the anthrax pages to something that made more sense, and working a lot on them) is really great. --LMS

---

The Cunctator/How to destroy Wikipedia: Weird stuff you have there, Cunctator-san. But thanks for the heads-up.

---

Cunctator, why don't you e-mail me at lsanger@nupedia.com ? I would like to try to understand where your head is at, and I'd like to do so without creating a public spectacle. --Larry Sanger

---

Cunctator, appealing to you as a sensible bystander here: BF and I are about ready to lose it with each other over New Age. What do you think?

---

Cunctator, I am appealing to you to please write to me in private email: jwales@bomis.com to discuss some of the allegations you have made against me. You're either misunderstanding something at a fundamental level, or you are trying to be mean to me for no reason. Either way, I want to get to the bottom of it. I'm leaving this message on Oct. 25, 2001. I hope that you'll write to me within the next 24 hours. We really need to talk this out, because I don't think you really want to be so unfair to me. --Jimbo Wales

---

Thanks for the support -- she has a lot of neat things to add, but can't seem to make the leap to scholarly presentation...JHK

---

WINAD undeletes. Stop it. Silly. If Ddroar wants to he/she/it can, you leave it. -- 62.253.64.xxx

Especially Quimby. Thats not even a word for fucks sake. -- GWO

---

I rather like the idea of a historical archive for Wikipedia, actually. I had created the GNE Project Files page some time ago, so it was just an extention of the same idea. Glad you like it. --Stephen Gilbert

---

Nice job on improving Wikipedia commentary/The Wikipedia Community! --Seb

---

Most of the vandalism has links to off-server images which, as is being discussed elsewhere, is somewhat unethical. -- Paul Drye

---

setting aside the angry tone of the vandalism for a moment, I think that revision 802 is beautiful as poetry. especially with the images. The idea that we will all become ceramic figurines coupled with the two images of grimace, one soft and the next ceramic... well, if my creative writing students were so apt with such imagery I would be a happy teacher. Clearly the work is mean spirited, but let me speak up for its artistic merits (merits probably outweighed by the general meanness). Anyway, I am not weighing in on the whole delete or not delete issue. I'm just saying that these pieces are aesthetically pleasing to me (which may be totally idiosyncratic, and should not be taken as an endorsement of the message in anyway at all). Looking on the light side. --trimalchio

Revision 802 clearly stands out, since it is also a parody on the psychological warfare flyers that the US dropped over Afghanistan at about the same time. --AxelBoldt

Maybe it has merits to be in some "modern art" exposition (what doesn't?), but I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia.--AN

---

Since I originally put the vandalism up on HomePage Vandalism , I will explain here why I did it. (I was going to do so in talk:Main_Page, but my web browser is screwy and won't let me edit it.) As trimalchio said, I think it has some aesthetic qualities: especially revision 802, less so revision 804, least revision 799. I also think some of it is a bit funny (I suppose I have a crude sense of humour.) Most important of all, it's Wikipedia social history. The biggest thing I was worrying about was, not "does this sort of stuff belong in an encyclopedia?" or "is this stuff going to encourage vandalism?" but is this stuff going to offend LMS and TimShell, since it attacks them, however childishly. If people really wanted to delete it from HomePage Vandalism, I had no major objection. But on the other hand, if it's on the Cunctator's personal pages, I think that unless there is something very offensive or bad or whatever about it, he should be allowed to keep it there. -- SJK

---

I think it's pretty obvious that The Cunctator has no right to make his personal pages the repository of vandalism. I've decided to remove it. --LMS

---

Obvious to you maybe, but not obvious to me. I would respectfully submit that you are becoming increasingly controlling and dictatorial, that you have a grudge against The Cunctator and are doing this in part out of a personal vendetta. You shouldn't delete anything out of someone's personal page unless it is offensive or in violation of copyright or a waste of disk space/bandwith, or something similar. Maybe you could argue some of those criteria in this case, but instead you are arguing that archiving other people's vandalism is somehow wrong in itself. So I've put the pages up on http://www.geocities.com/sj_kissane/vandalised-homepages.html where you can't delete them. -- SJK

---

I understand that what I've done is controversial, but please don't assumptions about my motives, Simon. If you ask, I will report them honestly. No, I am not doing this as a grudge against The Cunctator. I am doing this in order (1) to take a stand against vandalism (it's not welcome on Wikipedia, period) and (2) to clarify the fact that, indeed, I am willing to enforce what I think is right for Wikipedia, and I am not willing to bow to pressure such as you are exerting right now. In other words, I'm not going to drop my principles simply because The Cunctator, you, or anyone else thinks that I am overstepping my authority; rather, I am going to define here and now what authority I feel comfortable in asserting. Those are my motives; I imagine one might have been able to guess them without too much trouble, if one were to have read my recent essay carefully and to have given me the benefit of the doubt while doing so.

I just totally disagree with your account of the right you have over your personal Wikipedia space, and as far as I can tell, it's not proceeding beyond competing assertions. Here's how I see it: your personal pages are there for you to use more or less as you like, but if it looks to me like it's clearly contrary to Wikipedia's mission, as keeping an archive of vandalism very plainly strikes me as being, then I'm not going to hesitate to delete them or otherwise try to rectify the situation.

As far as keeping a record of old pages on Wikipedia, we are obligated to let you do this, but I hope you put up a link back of some sort.  ;-)

Speaking simply from the point of view of good taste, I don't know why you would want to keep a record of it. They were in poor taste, displaying the usual idiocy and mediocrity of too-clever-by-half poorly-raised children. That's not something that deserves to be memorialized, you know. --LMS

---

At Wikipediholic/Confessed wikipediholics, you wrote: "... people seem to hate me." Let me go on record. I love you, man. <smile> I especially appreciate your passionate desire to improve the 'pedia. It's a pleasure working with you on this project. <>< tbc

---

"... people seem to hate me."

they disagree with some of your actions, C. That's different --November 3, 2001 3:17 pm by 65.94.176.xxx

---

I don't hate you. I agree with tbc, & appreciate your concern for wikipedia & what it could be. But at the same time I think some of your arguments suffer from gross oversimplifications that are (to me, at least) a bit frustrating. I take it that's a side effect of your deep & genuine concern, and try to leave it at that.  :-) --Koyaanis Qatsi

---

C.

Much gratitude for all your good work. You seem to be saving this project from the delete-happy bone-heads out there.

Nice to know I'm a "delete happy bonehead." I had good reasons for posting those pages there, Cunc had even better reasons for removing them, an action with which I was completely OK. That's called "collaboration". Comments like this are childish and unnecessary. - MMGB

Could you give us a clue as to how your name is pronounced? How do you expect us to scream your name in the throes of heated passion without a pronunciation guide, eh ?

Thanks!

---

I'd assume it's something like KUNK-tay-ter. --Damian Yerrick

"kungk-TAY-tuhr," according to http://wordsmith.org

I've always pronounced it "Throat-wobbler mangrove" - MMGB

In the original Latin it's "kunk-tah-tor." That might count for something.

---

1-11-27: Cunctator, I'm happy to observe that you haven't dropped out. Neither did I --Mathijs

---

. :-) Ok, kids, once and for all: "Cunctator" was the nickname of Roman general Quintus Fabius Maximus (see the English word "cunctation" = "Procrastination; delay" in any good dictionary) because he defeated the Carthaginian general Hannibal by "delaying" tactics. (See britannica.com if you like).

See us! We didn't write the Second Punic War up for nothing...

---

December 6, 2001 10:28 pm comment by LMS deleted by LMS December 7, 2001 9:03 pm after removal of "back-handed compliment" to Bias Talk

---

Cool logo... How did you find the Hobbes quote? --AxelBoldt

---

Nice entry on DrinkOrDie. I linked to it from infoAnarchy.org. -- Eloquence

---

Hey Cunc, someone once admonished me for re-formatting an article to eliminate the line breaks inside paragraphs in the source text, and I've come to agree. If that's something your editor does automatically it's not a big deal and we'll just have to live with it, but I'd like to ask that you not actually go out of your way to do that (I just noticed that your change to the Computer virus article did that). It makes the diffs essentially useless. Leaving them in doesn't affect the presentation of the article at all, but it does make the diffs clearer. The only time you have to do it is inside a DL (lines starting with : create a DL), and I've asked Magnus to fix the new software so that won't be necessary either (though I don't think he's actually done it). --LDC

---

Hi Cunc -- I think that there really isn't a comparison between bowling and pitching. Bowling in cricket requires that the ball bounce and no bending of the elbow by the bowler. Bowlers also utilze cracks in the pitch to get additional movement. The action is so unlike pitching (the goal is, too, come to think of it -- there's no penalty for keeping the batsman from batting and running -- in fact, it's an advantage) that it doesn't quite work. JHK, married to someone who grew up on cricket grounds and therefore indoctrinated...

JHK is right, as legspin is dependent on the ball bouncing there isn't really a direct comparison to baseball. About the only analogy that works is between curveballs and swing bowling, in which a bowler gets the ball to curve in the air before it bounces. --Robert Merkel

---

Hey C, are you hanging on to your old page at Wikipedians/The Cunctator? I'm moving user pages into the user: space, and I came across it. --Stephen Gilbert

---

Hey, from what I remember, you created the Wikipedia logo that is currently used on the English wikipedia. Could you please send the logo in a vector graphics format to Scott Redd at redd@interbug.com and CC: me on it so I know that he gets it. He's going to use it to make the Wikipedia T-shirt logo. Also, delete this message when you're done. Thanks! --Chuck Smith

---

I just saw a new tribute article being created by someone who knew a victim in the 9-11 attack. The text was in all caps so at first I went right ahead and hit the edit link to convert the caps to proper case -- but then it became apparrent that the article wasn't an enclyclopedia article. I know that these pages are something that is important and something that needs to be left to posterity, but shouldn't there be some type of link or disclaimer at the top of each one of these pages that tell a wikipedia visitor that the article they are looking at is a tribute page and not really an encyclopedia article? Doing so would automatically change the way they may edit the article or stop them from deleting the content saying that the person isn't "deserving" of being in an encylopedia -- which is technically true for most of the victims but this is a special case. This would have to be well-crafted to be respectful and probably something we would have to add to each one of these articles as they are created. What do you think? Any ideas? --maveric149, Friday, May 3, 2002

Just saw another one -- heartbreaking. How about this idea for a disclaimer.

This is a tribute page about one of the people lost on the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: Normal wikipedia rules on editing do not apply.
--maveric149

---

Hi C. I just added some ideas of mine over on the m:Project Sourceberg page. I thought you might be interested. --Stephen Gilbert

---

Important note for all sysops: There is a bug in the administrative move feature that truncates the moved history and changes the edit times. Please do not use this feature until this bug is fixed. More information can be found in the talk of Brion VIBBER and maveric149. Thank you. --maveric149

---

Hi, I've noticed that on your last edit of the Sainfoin page, the CSS formatting markup now appears literally on my browser (Mozilla 1.0rc1). This is the edit:

• (cur) (last) . . 06:56 Aug 3, 2002 . . The Cunctator (CSSified...)

Thanks, --ramin

---

Can you clarify "went out with" on the Waksal page: did he date them romantically, go to a restaurant with them, or what? Vicki Rosenzweig 09:43 Aug 10, 2002 (PDT)

---

Sorry about the "get a grip" thing, I guess I was being overly combative WITHOUT being respectful. I hope we can sort out the invasion vs. attack issue despite my initial broadside. --Ed Poor

---

What is the value/goal/purpose of the Wail Alshehri page? Vicki Rosenzweig

There needs to be a Wail Alshehri entry at some point. I was only asking it be restored because it had been deleted summarily (to my knowledge).

---

I'm touched to be included in your "Hall of Shame". In any case you'll have to wait till they resurrect the old history (phase I) to know what happened with the article. AstroNomer

---

Check this out. --KQ 09:03 Sep 2, 2002 (PDT)

---

I wouldn't have minded if you had summarily deleted the article you found to be a copyright infringement Patrick Adams, nor I think that anyone would have. I'd trust you on that. AstroNomer

---

Cunc, a gift for you:

http://web.archive.org/web/20011218012318/www.wikipedia.com/wiki/September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack/World_economic_effects

According to the logs of that site, the article dissapeared somewhere between december 2001 and january 2002.AN

---

Thank you, may I ask you on my talk page September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack. --Mflagg

---

Thanks for moving the cunt stuff from fuck to profanity. --Ed Poor 20:46 Sep 23, 2002 (UTC)

---

I think I proposed this somewhere, but there was no response. The Sep 11 pages should have their own server, something like sep11.wikipedia.org. I'm sure Jimbo would agree to it. There could be copied all the information, and leave in the wikipedia only the encyclopedical content. I agree that simply sending it all to meta is not a nice solution. There it will simply be lost among all the things there are already. But here...there will continue to be voices saying why are we making an exception. What do you think of this? --AN

---

See my response to your request at User talk:Ram-Man -- Ram-Man

---

Cunctator, I don't mind you "fixing" pages listed at the votes for deletion (such as Vladimir Levin and Bob Diamond), but could you please put a reply-sentence at votes for deletion, indicating that you edited/moved/redirected that page? That way the one that put the page there (me, in these cases) can easily see that the problem has been taken care of - there are often a lot of edits to that page, and it's difficult to track them. Thanks, Jeronimo

(from User talk:Jheijmans) I try to list pages I've taken off of the Votes for deletion page in the summary. There's no really good mechanism, but I'm not going to leave them on the page if they don't belong there

Even if they don't belong there, is it such a big problem to put a line like "fixed it", or "rewrote copyrighted text". That's the common practice, and it's convenient for those who have posted or seen the entry before. Jeronimo

---

Cunctator, please stop messing with the 9/11 In Memoriam page. I have posted a notice on the list earlier this week that I would move everything to meta. There's been plenty of time to find another appropriate place. Now it is time for the page to leave Wikipedia. I have seen only approving reactions to the mail. Rather start working on a useful location for this stuff. Jeronimo

---

Hey d00d, don't leave. Larry abused me too. But don't leave cuz like we got a lot of work to do here. Lir 17:05 Nov 3, 2002 (UTC)

---

You are talking of a thorn tc. A whole month of discussions, reverts and private 'strong' disagreement. Consensual decisions can only be made if people agree on such a way to make decisions; which is not the case. Some people just want decisions to be taken quickly, and easily, without thinking and without pain. Moving toward another one, and creative thinking seem too much trouble probably. We already moved away from a family dictatorship. I currently doubt very much we'll make any more progress w/o new "blood". I am feeling tired. Any clue will be welcome.

---

I'd have to actually do that for what you said to make sense. Lir 21:03 Nov 9, 2002 (UTC)

You can modify the above to...

? I didn't. I'd have to do that for that to make sense. That doesn't make sense. Huh? Um... Ok... What you said, didn't make much sense, cuz I didn't do anything wrong.

One could hardly argue that my actions in trying to change page names were any less valid than the actions of others in trying to change the page names. Lir 21:09 Nov 9, 2002 (UTC)

---

lol! thx for the hot tips page! Lir 21:27 Nov 9, 2002 (UTC)

---

meta? whats wrong with you. Lir 16:29 Nov 11, 2002 (UTC)

---

u tell him! Lir 09:52 Nov 18, 2002 (UTC)

---

Lir used various comments on his Talk page to piss people off. He was banned for not playing nicely. Leaving behind his words that were intended to piss people off is not friendly to the Wikipedia, and it negates part of the usefulness of the ban that he is under right now. Actions like restoring his trolls seem to encourage him in trying to find ways to evade the ban. Can you please explain how the Wikipedia benefits from restoring Lirs talk page exactly as he had it? --Clutch

---

There's a new article at Stephen Emanual Poulos that seems to belong with the In Memoriam pages. Just letting you know so you can rescue it before it's overzealously deleted. -- Someone else 02:19 Nov 30, 2002 (UTC)

it's been overzealously moved to sep11:Stephen Poulos.

---

So I'm trigger happy, huh? The only information in Baby Boy at the point where I suggested it be deleted was that it didn't star Tupac Shakur. If someone wants to add more info to an article, that's fine, but to say I'm trigger happy because I deleted information that wasn't particularly important, and added it back to Tupac Shakur's article, is, IMNSHO, not being trigger happy. -- Zoe

---

Please defend your reverts on the Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses page. --Clutch 23:59 Dec 15, 2002 (UTC)

Hi. I take your point that accurate redirects not generally be deleted. Does this still apply when there is near enough to zero chance that they will ever be used though? Tannin 17:13 Feb 4, 2003 (UTC)

---

I thought your nick was a play on the word Dictator. (snickers) CrusadeOnTerrorists

---

Did you leave out 24 or do you consider that a separate case? best wishes, Koyaanis Qatsi

You've just edited a protected page. How is that a better solution? Anyway, I just unprotected it. Koyaanis Qatsi

When I visited the page after you edited it, it said it was still protected. Perhaps you missed the link. Koyaanis Qatsi

---

Please do not do "hit and run" moves without any explanation. Wikipedia:Complaints about other contributors is too long, and conflicts with Wikipedia:Annoying users. Either merge the two pages (preferably into one with a short title), or move the first one back to "Edit wars in progress". --Eloquence 13:02 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

---

since the sep11 wiki was apparently your brainchild, I wonder if you could review Talk:September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Memorial wiki pages and give your opinion? Thanks :)

---

Why are you restoring sep11 tribute pages? It was agreed a long time ago to move these to the sep11 wiki. --mav

For obvious reasons (hehe) I'm interested in the answer to this question too... :) Martin

I would just like to say that I support the retention of factually correct, verifiable, NPOV, encyclopaedia-style material in the Wikipedia, even if some people consider it unimportant. So - I wish you good luck! :) -- Oliver P. 02:11 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

But the tribute pages are not NPOV - nor can they ever be. Facts are ne*****possible to check. The people are not famous therefore articles on them are not encyclopedic. Therefore these entries have no place in Wikipedia. --mav 02:14 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

I concurr. Tannin

In the victims' articles, there are lots of external links to news articles, written by professional journalists who presumably checked their facts. We could restrict the material in the victims' articles to only cover facts reported in the news articles, and if even the news articles are suspect, we can always attribute the statements by saying, "According to Tri-Town News, ..." or whatever it may be. -- Oliver P. 02:41 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

So, Oliver, you'd support the moving of articles like John Kevin McAvoy, for example? How about Patrick Currivan? Maybe Jeffrey W. Coombs? I could find more examples, but most of the articles The Cunctator restored, which comprised about half of the articles I moved over, had no external links to news articles at all. Martin

I know nothing about the people you mention above, and I can see that their articles are rather weak. However, if The Cunctator moved them back, I presume he had good reason, and can provide references for at least some of the material. I would ask him to put these references into the articles, and I would have no problem with anyone removing information which cannot be backed up with references. I would suggest moving unverified information to the talk page, with a request for references. That way the article itself would be left with verified information only, and no information would be lost, since it would still be on the talk page. If this results in the article being left in a sub-stub state for more than, say, a week, it could be put on "Votes for deletion", where it would wait another week before being removed altogether. (This wouldn't affect the memorial wiki. You can copy all the material to it anyway, since that is not an encyclopaedia, and then we can deal with the Wikipedia content under the same rules as any other Wikipedia content, without worrying about people losing their tributes.) Those are my ideas, anyway. -- Oliver P. 19:28 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

We now have a new case study with which to sort out questions of verifiability and encyclopaedicity(?) without having to worry about memorial issues. A "newbie" added an article yesterday on Ben Hajioff, an artist of very little fame. It was clearly meant (at least in part) as a joke, but I have rewritten it to contain only information which I know (or at least believe) to be true. I am inviting discussion to the article's talk page, so we can hopefully get some consensus on what people think the standards of verifiability really should be around here. -- Oliver P. 16:42 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Cunctator. I'll let you do all the reverting you like - in the mean time I'll busy myself fixing the sep11:In Memoriam pages. Getting into edit conflicts won't helps us sort this out, so I'll take my turn later. There's no rush, after all. Martin

---

You just removed my entry TV Guide on the basis that the generic term would be TV guide. I guess it serves me right for putting up a straw man, but my main point (which you did not address in your edit summary) was that the article is mere advertising for a web site, and thus under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not #18, should be deleted. Do you disagree? -- Tim Starling 06:10 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

---

Thank you for your refactoring. Please make your views known by "voting" at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(slogans). --Uncle Ed 23:51 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

---

feel free to participate in the timeline. i only have western sources, so the timeline is skewed. but i try to give it as much NPOV as possible. It has been quite an excersize of thought unpacking what the media says, and putting it into NPOV. I am currently going through news archives and filling in the past. It will take a few more months to have the past be comprehensive. But at least I am staying on top of what is current, too. I'm glad to hear someone is actually reading it! Kingturtle 11:32 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

---

re: Image:Time; gulf war2.jpg - you need to hit the (del) link to actually delete it... not "delete this page" Martin 17:28 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

---

Sorry about reinserting the Dan Marino page on VFD, at the time it looked like it had been taken out by Rbrwr in the same edit that was only summarized as "Public Record Office - done", which made it look to me like an accidental removal. I've taken it back off of there now. -- John Owens

---

Hey Cunctator, do you think Timeline of U.S. economic indicators has any future? It seems like it'll be a LOT of work to bring it up to date, and if no one will update it, it seems like it should be deleted. -- Minesweeper 09:45 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

---

I see that you have discovered that tar-baby called "communist state." Had you followed the lengthy debates on the talk:China page (much now archived), you would have been forewarned. Apparently we are dealing with some platonic ideal that is resistant of historical specificity, empirical evidence, and accessible only to a few authorities. My sympathies, and good luck! Slrubenstein

---

That's right. All hail the ivroy tower.

---

Yes, Cunc. It's quite simple to seperate a formal and rather theoretical system of government from an in-the-flesh history of nations - exactly as you would seperate the mechanics and engineering and science of making a machine gun (history of weaponry or science of ballistics or whatever) from the historical impact that machine guns had on warfare (which is the sort of thing that is discussed in trench warfare and American Civil War. Obviously, the topics are related and need to be cross-linked. Communist state is about the organisation of communist states. In its best form (pre your revert) it was an excellent, very balanced and accurate entry. Communist government seems to be about the history of the major communist states, though it was rather incoherent last time I looked at it. It needs work. Tannin 09:30 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

---

Please, quit your ill-informed slanders. I invited Tannin, Sluberstien, and Jtdirl to work on the Industrial Revolution because

1.) I've worked with them far more often than just about anyone else due to similar interests (Have you noticed that all these users just happen to work often with history articles?)

2.) I know that they all bring great quality to articles

3.) I've worked with them in articles pertaining to related topics (Tannin and Slub with New Imperialism comes to mind right away) so I had the feeling that they might have been interested and

4.) because they all have academics backgrounds. Of all the reasons, probably the first determined why those three just came to mind right away.

Would you be interested in working on this article? If you want, I'd be very happy to work with you since this article is my first priority once I'm not so busy aside from Wiki. If not, than this isn't your concern.

Although I did not directly invite Mav since he probably has hundreds of other priorities (have you seen the list of most active Wikipedians? He's up there as two or three, I believe, with something like 30,000 edits), I asked one of the three, I Tannin, if he'd like to invite Mav, figuring that he would know better than I if Mav were likely to be interested. Mav came to mind because his academic background is in the natural sciences and I wondered if he could help with technological innovation, especially considering that Mav is quite well-rounded and well-versed in history as well. So far, Tannin has agreed to come to the article eventually while Jtdirl hasn't replied (probably because he hasn't seen the request).

I know a thing or two about Communism, and I'm not a Communist and none of the people with whom I've often worked come nowhere close either. There is a Communist Party USA and I have never participated with in any way. I even fundamentally disagree with many Green Party platforms as well, especially on matters of trade, but others as well. So I've never contemplated joining a party further to the left on the far left, nonetheless the CP-USA. I'm merely a registered Democrat, who'd be considered farley moderate on most issues not pertaining to foreign policy. I'm certain that Jtdirl and Tannin have no damn partisan attachments whatsoever to presenting Communist history either (Jtdril is an Irish social democrat and I have no idea what Tannin's politics are) from a sympathetic point of view. In fact, if this site were an opinion piece I'm sure that they would be writing from a view firmly opposing the Communist state structure as a government-type. So please, quit your slanderous charges and finally realize that this was a fight over relevance and quality, not ideology (at least from our point of view).

I myself have written more articles that would be considered "anti-Communist" by lay readers than probably you and Fred Bauder and all the other contributors under the paranoid and asinine suspicions of "historical revisionism" put together. If you wanted to work with articles with me on the stagnation of the Soviet economy once it had exhausted its capacity for industrial growth, the social consequences of collectivization, or the distortions of the Soviet economy that have made the post-Communist so wrenching throughout Eastern Europe, we could work constructively together, on articles you'd like.

Do you really think that I called Jtdirl over to the Communist state article to protect it from a perspective with which I disagree? If that were the case, what the hell would explain all the material that I've contributed that would not be considered "anti-Communist"?

If you like we could put aside this bickering and get to work on some articles. However, I'd expect you to retract those ridiculous statements that you posted on the mailing list.

172

Hey, cool it down a little, Abe. We shouldn't mix up Cunc (who though we disagree from time to time, is a man of good will and good sense) with anyone else. OK, Cunc said something unwarranted that got my goat and yours. But it was relatively mild, spoken in goodwill, and he later posted again to say that he meant no harm by it, and apologised if he had offended. In my book, that is a fair offer and a gentlemanly act. Let's just leave it at that.

Cunc, what do you say? I'm away from my email right now and can't post to the list without a lot of tedious stuffing about, but I thank you for your softly spoken words, and accept them in the spirit of concilliation that they were offered in. I hope that you too will accept my regret that the disagreement happened, and I'll look forward to working with you on whatever entry our paths happen to cross on. Best -- Tannin 07:29 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

---

Opps, I didn't see the latest letter. It's 3:30 in the morning here in the Eastern US, so my language might have been harsher than I would've liked ordinarily. It stemmed from reading his letter charging that I invited my Communist comrades to the Industrial Revolution page. I know that Cunc is a good contributor as well, but that letter was out of line and very ill-informed. It was an unbecoming application of the baseless charges of "historical revisionism" being promulgated by Fred Bauder. 172

Then why don't you delete the offending message? I'm sure tc will read it anyway but if you delete it he will read your retraction first. --mav

---

The letter is fine in content, but maybe could stand to be milder in tone. The charges still haven't gone away so my response still has its place on this page to address them. User:172|172]]

---

Cunc, I read your "I do honestly believe that factionalization is a dangerous thing" comment on 172's talk page. I am not convinced that there is any serious danger of that here (at least I can't think of any particular signs of it at this stage), but ... well ... if you want to talk more about it at some stage, I'll listen.

The suggestion that 172, JTD and I are a "faction" or might become one is just silly though. (Not having a go at you here: I seem to remember that you didn't dream that one up: it was just Fred's rampant paranoia, and I doubt that anyone takes that stuff too seriously.) Fair dinkum, you ought to take a look at some of our edit histories: 172 and I had a great big edit war in an African history entry early on, and JTD and I have clashed heavily too. Doubtless we will disagree again on things before too long. History is like that: it's contentious stuff. In fact the one thing that really has produced something of a sense of community between Fred's three Communist Revisionist Holocaust Deniers (or whatever we are in fantasyland this particular week) is the common experience of being abused and lumped together. In this particular case, the best (and quite possibly the only) way to create a cabal is to accuse people of belonging to a cabal.

But enough of that. You mentioned "atomization". I don't promise to be persuaded by you if you want to outline whaht you mean by that, but I will listen. -- Tannin 17:12 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

---

I don't care if you think that I'm a Communist or not. I'm not particularly concerned with the historical approach of memorizing a lot of facts and coming to ideals-based or values-based conclusions anyway. I'm concerned with your charges and Fred's charges of me seeking to omit content that doesn't fit my agenda. It doesn't matter what ideology you charged me with advancing; the charge that I was advancing something was what was offensive.

Now, I think that I've addressed this several times before, but you keep quoting me out of context.....

<discussion of issues moved to Talk:Communist state>

Thus, the trends that I noted were just there to show the problems with Fred's approach: sweeping generalizations. My problems with Fred's edits stemmed not from finding them unpleasant given any ideological persuasion that I might hold or even a disagreement of historical interpretation. My problem was simply his bad approach disrespecting the complexity of history.

172

---

Excellent work on hasty generalization (why didn't I think of that!). A minor nit though; the structure of the linkages may get a bit hairy by and by. Cimon avaro 03:21 18 May 2003 (UTC)

What is inherently funny about the word "sock", without context? Mintguy 21:17 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Ah, Mintguy, we meet again on our quest to rid the world of Inherently funny word. Cunctator, can you document your moving the page this way and that way on the talk page. Thanks. CGS 20:29 24 Jun 2003 (UTC).

---

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation has been listed for deletion. -Smack 06:26 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Greetings, Cunctator. A group of us are currently hammering out the details for a new version of the Wikipedia article on the Open Directory Project. Since you are mentioned by name in the article, I thought you might be interested in participating in the rewrite. -- NetEsq 01:45 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi Cunctator. You are listed as having expressed an opinion on whether or not Daniel C. Boyer should be deleted. Can you please turn that opinion into a formal vote, at Talk:Daniel C. Boyer? Thanks. -- Tim Starling 09:52, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)

Your perspective also requested at Wikipedia:auto-biography

--

Good advice to User:Willsmith! Thanks for encouraging those with a uniue or rare perspective.

---

On a related issue, m:Trolls request your attention to m:Wikimedia press release policy. It needs attention from those who might understand the way certain cabals and cliques run things, by taking control of public interface and etiquette, and becoming whining martinets insisting that others are threatening or oppressing them.

m:The ideal Wikipedia board, m:Wikipedia3 and m:Wikipedia4 issues that are implied by the series of press releases, will have to be settled eventually, preferably, before there is a public commitment to any particular position that will bind a m:board - that doesn't exist yet!

It seems multiple attempts to make Wikipedia more balanced across languages and democratize it have failed, and, it would be good not to miss this chance. A few old hands are wading in, and, perhaps, this is the remaking of the project.

Your help is appreciated. Please also encourage others, especially those who speak English only as a second language, or who have come into conflict with the cabal.

Thanks Quintus!

When RK comes back I want to nominate him for sysop (again) I dont ask for much, but I ask that you support his nomination. Sincerely-戴&#30505sv 23:06, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

---

Keeping articles on small pages is a good idea but the current climate in VfD means that they will be deleted. The mailing list inclusionist view isn't prevalent on VfD, unfortunately, and I'm moving to the view you expressed that VfD is harmful and should be eliminated. JamesDay 23:07, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Please don't delete Votes for Deletion headers on pages that are still under discussion. RickK 03:40, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

You missed something in the history ([]Secondary education]]) when you moved around. An extra treat. --Menchi 04:17, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Just out of curiosity, why are you moving VfD notices from the top to the bottom of VfD'd pages? orthogonal 06:32, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

re: [1] - Why is it important to remove them from VfD? Being listed on VfD does not mean something is going to be deleted, so apart from the fact the page is rather large, I can't see what the issue is with leaving them there for five days. You suggest that examples of wrongly listed pages should not remain on VfD. Do you think there is a benefit to having an archive of VfD-listed-but-not-deleted pages? We already have the Wikipedia:Archived delete debates for ones which were discussed at length, but I'm not sure this would be very scalable if you are suggesting that we list all non-deleted pages somewhere. That would be, at a very rough guess, 40 per week. Angela 01:28, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

FYI: User:Maximus Rex has requested that your sysop privileges be revoked. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, at the bottom. -- Cyan 18:41, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

On your user page you've written, "And if you're not a sysop, consider yourself lucky for not getting to see the tortured HTML of the Main Page." Correct me if I'm wrong, but anyone can see the HTML if they want: most browsers will let a reader see the code of a page. So the comment doesn't really reflect reality. (Sysops are the only ones who can edit it, of course.) -- Cyan 04:13, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] santorum

Who deleted it? Would I be violating due process if I undeleted it? Kingturtle 20:38, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Cunctator has recently undeleted santorum, which action I support. I've just relisted it on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, though, because the present undeletion policy states that pages should be listed there after undeletion. (Even if you don't want them to be deleted!) -- Oliver P. 10:26, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] encyclopedia

I guess I see an encyclopedia as being much more than a glorified list of facts. A good article contextualises a group of related facts, giving them context and meaning, or converting them from information into knowledge. For example, a sequence of discrete article on football chants tells you nothing more that what each chant is and when/where it originated/is used. A good article on football chants can, in addition, give you an insight into one of the most significant areas of popular culture in Britain (indeed, the non-US world, increasingly). Bmills 13:25, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary

I thought you might want to be aware that I have suggested all the Wikipedia commentary pages be moved to Meta. Angela. 20:39, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Re "encyclopedic"

There was some discussion about that a while ago, with Oliver P. presenting the argument you just did. I came to a different conclusion: User:Cyan/Unencyclopedic. Cheers, Cyan 03:53, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi, Cunc.

We share the dubious distinction of both being members of what you have christened the "arbitration cabal," as well as the rather more meritous distinction of agreeing on a few important things.

I am displeased with the direction that arbitration appears to be taking. Rather than try to address article disputes, the "arbitration committee" instead appears to be, in the minds of many, a mechanism for banning users.

Separately, I am increasingly concerned at attempts to direct discussion about Wikipedia to the mailing list and the meta. There are a goodly number of reasons why this is bad, as I think you'll agree.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the best way to do something positive with arbitration, and also any ideas you might have on how to stimulate more productive policy discussions in a more open forum than the list.

UninvitedCompany 16:55, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Hey Cunc,

I don't agree with you about the separation of the lists from the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania article. I believe that the lists do not need their own articles, and that they should be put back into the main article. Perhaps if a facet gets too large, you can use NEWS STYLE. See the Jesus Christ article on how news style is used. WhisperToMe 07:10, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Also, please announce well in advance when you make major edits like sectioning off the History section, so that people can input their opinion on what you are doing. WhisperToMe 00:37, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Page size may have influenced my views on it. I think 20kb is a good sized page and I don't see the need to split things down in uselessly small chunks. Angela. 07:34, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

UninvitedCompany's comments above notwithstanding, Can I check that cunctator at kband.com is accurate. See wikipedia talk:arbitrators... Martin 02:17, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Magician

I have a Q on Talk:The Magician card. - UtherSRG 01:24, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙

[edit] Request for hard ban on Theresa Knott and DavidWBrooks

User:Theresa_knott vandalized the iridology:talk page repeatedly. Her spelling is always biased towards insulting POVs. User:DavidWBrooks questioned this editor's sanity (see below). It was this questioning that I reported six days ago. Apparently my report was misunderstood. I was banned as a consequence. Enclosed are the relevant passages. Both User:Theresa_knott and User:DavidWBrooks said this:

being polite is awfully annoying at times. - DavidWBrooks 16:56, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Eventually he'll get bored and go away. DavidWBrooks 15:58, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)"
Psychologists would be fascinated. DavidWBrooks 18:42, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I find it particlaly strange... theresa knott 19:29, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
iridoligy has to be paid for by the patient. They might like an idea of how much.theresa knott 12:27, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Politeness is a form of excess, mister David W Brooks. It is necessary. Excess of irrelevance is not necessary : )

Sincerely, irismeister 13:38, 2004 Feb 3 (UTC)

---

[edit] Request for hard ban on Lord_Kenneth

User:Lord_Kenneth in talk mentions quote you're full of **** all... here unquote. Unworthy for lordship, methinks : ) Sincerely, irismeister 13:32, 2004 Feb 3 (UTC)

[edit] New Main Page

He Cunc,

I thought you'd like to know that a proposal to replace the Main Page with Main Page/Test and Wikipedia:Main Page is close to reaching consensus to go live. Talk about the idea is happening at those two pages' talk pages. Gentgeen 17:15, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] AC votes

When you have a moment, could you vote in the matters of Plautus satire and Wik? --mav

[edit] Memorial

Could please comment on whether or not Touri Bolourchi should be moved to the memorial? Appreciate the advice, yours, Mark Richards 22:44, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks - I replied on the Touri Balourchi talk page - could you let me know why this shouldn't be moved? It looks like a candidate to me? Thanks! Mark Richards 16:15, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

[edit] Why remove Torch?

Hi Cunctator, could you explain why you removed the word torch from Iridology? In many countries the word flashlight means the thingy that comes with your camera, or which you attach to your camera to take piccies in the dark. Moriori 20:59, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] arbcom

(spam) Please vote at Wikipedia:Matter of Anthony DiPierro to accept or reject. It's been well over a month. Martin 01:27, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] pussy cat

Hi Cunctator, question for you at Talk:pussy. Jay 17:20, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Admin Nomination

Hello, I would appreciate your help by earning your vote as an admin. I have been here about 5 months now and have been nominated. I have made many contributions and have improved on my editing and behavior. I take this seriously, that is why I have gotten into it with Anthony so much. You can look at my user page yourself and see my contribtions. I would appreciate a vote in the yes column if you agree. Again, thanks for your time and help. ChrisDJackson 02:34, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Anon reversion wars

Cunctator, I'd like to bring to your attention the fact that Levzur has now begun a series of simultaneous reversion wars from anonymous proxy servers, making it very difficult for a number of editors to work on about 10 articles. I would be grateful for the Arbitration Committee's urgent attention in this matter. Details are at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ChrisO_and_Levzur/Evidence#Anonymous_reversion_wars. -- ChrisO 11:58, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

;-) ant

[edit] Arbitration committee: Mr-Natural-Health

This is a note requesting your vote in my complaint concerning Mr-Natural-Health. Accept/decline/abstain, just as long as it doesn't just go stale. Thanks :-) - David Gerard 10:08, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

this removal might be too hasty.

Hi, I'm just leaving a note on every Arbitration Committee Member's talk page pleading with them to look at this case more quickly. He is back in full flow these last few days [2] --bodnotbod 02:34, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] We need to finish up JRR 1

People are getting restless. We need to close up Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JRR Trollkien; I think the easiest way to do this would be to officially proclaim that he is, indeed, a reincarnation of 24/EntmootOfTrolls/&c., which will be quick and uncontroversial. The new section is here. Could you possibly have a look at it? Thanks. James F. (talk) 04:28, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Need support on an undelete. Talk:Nazism/Seperate-National Socialism I would like your support to undelete this and restore as a proper standing article. Some content was moved to the Nazism article and has been made a redirect. The Nazi article is too long. *National Socialism* was not created by either Mussolini nor Hitler and the history of its development needs to have a seperate article upon it. Please see Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion.WHEELER 18:46, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Secondary education in Japan

Hi. Exploding Boy thought I added some incorrect Japanese word, but you added it to that article. So here is his message.

"Please, if you want to add Japanese to a page, ask someone who speaks the language to do it so we don't have to keep doing things twice. Your recent addition of "kōkōgakkō" was wrong. Exploding Boy 09:37, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)"

All I did there was change the circumflexes to macrons. WhisperToMe 11:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Blast from the Past

Greetings, cunctator!

I've finally spent enough time looking at wikipedia to figure out that I'd like to help out with the project. It looks like you're been here long enough to accumulate a fair bit of experience, and although you write about some misgivings, I presume that you find it rewarding overall.

We miss your contributions to ChefMoz -- I had found you intelligent and good to work with. The project has moved along in one respect, but also still hung up on some technical issues. Check back in and say hi -- your account is still active.

See you around! BCwine

[edit] Thanks for the comment...

...on the Talk:Porter J. Goss page. I am still relatively new to Wikipedia and though I have created a few of my own extensive articles, I don't have a lot of experience yet in editting prominent (e.g. listed on the main page) articles. The reassurance is very much appreciated! Skyler 18:05, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence provided on PolishPoliticians

Per your implied request, I have provided a variety of evidence that PolishPoliticians was indeed making personal attacks. Martin 11:00, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings from Charles Stewart

We know each other in DMoz days, around the time we both left. ---- Charles Stewart 12:38, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies

Possibly this page is interesting for you? ---- Charles Stewart 06:38, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hurra, hurra, but where is the Memex?

Great! You seem to have done what I have always put off doing myself. And just where is the Memex article you just created? I click on Memex links here and there and they all redirect me to the Hypertext page, which has always been absurd since the Memex concept was much more than an hypertext system, as anybody who as actually read the original article completely (or even just looked at the illustrated Life magazine companion article) can attest. AlainV 23:46, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Year of force pullout

Hi. In Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq you wrote "On April 17 prime minister John Howard announced that the Australian forces would pull out completely by June 2005". Could you add a year to the April 17? Was it 2003? Any reference would be handy too. Thanks.

[edit] Anthony DiPierro

I find it highly insulting that, apparently without looking at any of the evidence, you've insulted three respected users, including one of your colleagues, over this. Anthony has been rapped over the knuckles by this committee once before for exactly this behaviour. He proceeded to do it again, and made an agreement which resulted in a standing order, in order to prevent the second offence from being arbitrated. Now, he's gone and done this again.

This goes beyond the boundaries of assuming good faith. It's a third offence - and one that directly contradicts an agreement that Anthony himself made. Now, I'm trying to assume good faith with you here, but from your answer, it's not even clear if you've looked at either of the prior cases or the Votes for Undeletion page here. Once Raul did the latter, it was clear enough that he changed his vote from neutral to support.

Secondly, I'd question your removal of the case from the RFA page - without even consulting with any of the other arbitrators, and particularly considering your comment on the issue. Ambi 09:59, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The request is to re-open a case in which Anthony was specifically condemned for trolling behaviour in relation to VFD and associated pages, so mentioning trolling is entirely appropriate (not that I was the one who said it). And I said the pages he nominated were obvious garbage, not him (which you seem to have characterised it as). Furthermore, I have never seen behaviour such as this by an arbitrator in an arbitration case. Plautus satire didn't take this. RK didn't take this. If any other arbitrator believes hearing a case is not merited, they simply state "reject", and explain why. I don't see why you should be an exception. When I put forward what I believe to be a legitimate case, I don't expect to be subject to ad hominem attacks, from an arbitrator no less. One might also be inclined to question why you singled us out, when far worse things are said in practically every case that comes before the Commitee these days. Ambi 23:52, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Did I mentionned I was pleased to see you on the pictures at the Boston meeting ? :-) ant

[edit] "Terrorism" straw poll

There is a straw poll going on at Straw poll on use of the term "terrorist" on whether or not to use the term "terrorist" to describe the 9/11 attacks. I'd be interested in hearing your view on the subject. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 23:09, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A general note to arbitrators

Hello -- I'm writing this once but it's addressed to each of you, my colleagues. :-) I don't know if anyone's noticed, but we are under increasing criticism from Wikipedians because we are slow in judgment -- indeed, we have cases that were accepted 3 months ago still languishing in voting paralysis. I'm not writing this to necessarily chastise you -- two or three of you are ahead of me in keeping up with things, I know! But I see many pages where I and a few others have considered, proposed, and voted -- we are waiting for the rest of you. Please do so soon. If you are too busy to be on the AC (I often feel that way myself), perhaps it is time for new elections, but until that happens, I urge you to vote. We have a few tireless arbitrators doing a lot of work crafting some good proposals, but they're not getting attention, and the community grows restless. I hope we can ease some of the grumbling. I apologize for the impersonal message, and again, I'm not no a high horse here. I do think it's time for action, though. Leave me a note if you have any quarrel with my comments here -- I meant them well. See you at WP:RFAr... Jwrosenzweig 22:49, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Judaism / WWII

Do you have anything specific to back up your unfortunate insinuations? Shall I provide you with examples of my edits in these areas? Or are you unable, or unwilling to discuss any of this due to your status as arbitrator? Sam [Spade] 23:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

I just noticed your objection to the otherwise-unanimously passed principle concerning the role of administrators in the RickK and Guanaco case. I find this of some concern, because your comments in the next section imply that you're doing so because of your opinions on the matter, when as you know, there appears to be very little, if any, support for everyone being able to delete and undelete articles. With that in mind, it seems to come across as an attempt to use your position to exert added influence - rather than as a means of enforcing the community's consensus. Ambi 05:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

With reference to Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, I note under the heading of "rules" (emphasis mine) - The Arbitrators will judge cases according to the following guidelines, which they will apply with common sense and discretion, and an eye to the expectations of the community:

1. Established Wikipedia customs and common practices.

2. Wikipedia's "laws": terms of use, submission standards, bylaws, general disclaimer, and copyright license.

3. Sensible "real world" laws.

I ask you again - how does enforcing established Wikipedia customs with an eye to the expectations of the community give you the right to use your position as a weapon against those customs that you happen to personally disagree with? Ambi 08:05, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Netoholic

I have added some evidence to your arb dispute. I, also, find the way that Netoholic makes edits and uses IRC to push his own cause unsettling. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:53, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] New Gzornenplatz et al proposed temp order

Please vote for, against, or abstain in proposed temporary order #3 in the Gzornenplatz et al case. --mav 21:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] JoeM

That was NOT Jimbo Wales. See Special:Contributions/Jimmy Wales and Special:Contributions/HadaL. Please reinstate the block. -- Hadal 10:54, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nevermind: I've done it for you. Please be more careful next time. -- Hadal 11:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NB: Your votes in the (my) ArbCom case were erased by Fred Bauder b/c they were cast anonymously. VeryVerily 12:47, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User pages left in main namespace

Heya, I noticed some redirects left over from long long ago. Could you speedy delete them? (Unless there's some deep and meaningful reason for hanging on to them). They're The Cunctator/Questionable pages and The Cunctator. Thanks. --fvw* 22:34, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

Ah, I see your problem with Talk:The Cunctator. Perhaps it could be moved to a subpage of User:The Cunctator or history merged with User talk:The Cunctator? (see also: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#December_6). --fvw* 13:11, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

I moved Talk:The Cunctator to User_talk:The Cunctator/Old to preserve its history; see note at top of page. Noel (talk) 16:34, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

• Lol, you have to admit that this kangaroo courting is providing us with an excellent chance to observe how totalitarianism arises.
  • Its amazing how Raul can get away with referring to a mistaken edit where "da" is accidentally inserted into a paragraph as vandalism; or referring to the comment "Its True!" on a talk page as vandalism.
  • Its downright amusing that they are making an issue of my claim to have 100 sockpuppets in a pear tree, or that I should be harrassed for answering Fenenc's question with my honest belief that Jimbo should resign.
  • The best part though, is that Snowspinner was allowed to circumvent the mediation committee with his lame complaints (has he tried to mediate with me, and politely ask me not to ask any member's of the cabal to resign?); and apparently, the arbcom has no desire to even vote on my complaints against him!
  • The sad lesson here, is that these sorts of things happen in the real world -- to real people, and they go to jail for years and years because people like Raul, Epopt, and Snowspinner get in control of the government. Lirath Q. Pynnor

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 19:10, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Happy You're A Candidate

BF 01:16, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Hi, I've just discovered that John k has been requesting CERTAIN arbitrators to join the arbitration case against me. I think that trying to stack the odds in this way is an abuse. Would you consider joining the arbitration to balance the effect out? CheeseDreams 00:06, 11 November 2004

P.s. the arbitration is here [3]

[edit] One Question

In most legal situations, policemen whose conduct is undergoing criminal investigation tend to be temporarily suspended from duty.

Since Fred Bauder is currently undergoing arbitration himself as to his neutrality or accurate reportage, should he actually be allowed to take an active part in other cases?

CheeseDreams 18:27, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Main namespace cleanup

Heya, I've moved The Cunctator/Anarchists for a Better Past, Present, and Future to User:The Cunctator/old-Anarchists for a Better Past, Present, and Future. There's some edit history, so perhaps you want to keep it. Otherwise just delete it (or ask an admin to do so). &0xfeff;--fvw 20:35, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

Ditto for User:The Cunctator/old-Edited pages. &0xfeff;--fvw 20:35, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Kaufman lives! (I think we have all been tricked big time.)

Can you please do me a favor? Do you developers have the ability to see the IP address of a registered user? If so, can you please tell me if the IP address of User:Paektu is similar to that of User:JoeM (which I know is usually around 4.247.194.236)? If they are similar, then I am the biggest fool on Wikipedia. --NoPetrol 21:25, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've just figured this out: JoeM's full name is Joseph feakin' McCarthy. --NoPetrol 01:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dearly departed

I noticed you keep a list of departed Wikipedians. Maybe User: Revolver is interesting, especially since he gave a summary of why he left.

Just thinking back to the cicumstances of our departure from DMoz/ODP, I'm guessing you do think that the culture around Wikipedia is an enormous improvement compared to that around DMoz/OPD? I have the idea that a historical record should be made about the informal politics of DMoz/ODP, and I guess it's something we could make a joint project out of, if I can find the time. ---- Charles Stewart 13:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rider-Waite images

Greetings. You uploaded some Rider-Waite images, and I have listed them for deletion on IfD. An explanation is there. If you disagree, please voice your opinion there. Respectfully, – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 15:52, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Retro! cool.

hi, I would love you there, tc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28miscellaneous%29#Retrospective

Anthere 06:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. I had often heard of the title, but never read the original version of "how to destroy". I found it, and put the current version on meta http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/How_to_destroy_wikipedia, along with the links to previous versions. I am glad I finally read it.

Best

Ant

[edit] Bosstown

Planning some Boston meetups over the coming weeks: tomorrow (Sunday) at Asmara, and two weeks later in (place tbd)... would love to see you. Iteratively, +sj + 20:44, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] the issue of school articles

In November 2003, you participated in a VfD debate over Sunset High School (Portland). The debate was archived under Talk:Sunset High School (Portland). The issue over this article remains contested. moreover, there still does not exist a wikipedia policy (as far as i can tell) over what to do in regards to articles about specific U.S. public school. The article in question has been re-nominated for VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sunset High School (Portland). My hope is that a real consensus can come out of the debate, and a real policy can take shape. Take part if you are so willing. Kingturtle 02:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) P.S. The history of the debate can also be reviewed and discussed at Are high schools encyclopedic?.

[edit] Just a note

I've been poking around your userspace...

Keep up the good work! humblefool® 21:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Current Events page

I have been trying to find the origins of the Wikipedia Current Events page. What I found so far. Do you know the earliest history of the Current Events page? --Memenen 3 July 2005 01:36 (UTC)

[edit] List of warez groups on VfD

Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of warez groups for an ongoing discussion regarding the potential deletion of the List of warez groups article. —RaD Man (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Local madness

For a Good Tyme, see User:Sj/WMB6.

[edit] Welcome back!

Let me be the first .. :-) Wizzy…☎ 19:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Abramoff

Love your refactor of Jack Abramoff and associated articles. If you have an interest in the matter I would appreciate if you looked at many notes I compiled at Jack Abramoff/AbramoffRefactor. There is an interesting story to be told in the way Abramoff pulled off his various tricks. -KWH

Thanks for the good thoughts... cheers, time for this one to go to bed... KWH

It occurs to me that in my private message I may have damned you with faint praise by saying you 'seem' reasonable... I meant to say that I respect your opinion. With regard to the matter I contacted you about, on further review I have decided that no further action is necessary. Tout est au mieux. I shall tend my own garden. KWH

Hey -- nice job on Jack Abramoff and associated articles. I also want to recomment KWH's Jack Abramoff/AbramoffRefactor as good source stuff. I also want to compliment you on the Abramoff template. Question: how does one comment and/or edit that? (Specifically, I think Bob Ney might be eligble for that box, but my question is more general). Thanks! Sholom 17:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey how are today, I was wandering if you could restore the Sprotect on Jack Abramoff, if you look at the edit log, there is a vandal who has been switching IPs, and being uncivil, he also refuses to register, due to his uncivil nature. He will not allow a single reference to Abramoff being a jew, and has removed even the edit you made. Until this guy cools down, I don't think the Abramoff article can continue.--M4bwav 13:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note, our anonymous guy is back.... Now working from 62.0.139.162. Thanks for any help. --StuffOfInterest 19:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect to anonymous users and yourself, the Abramoff page has come to a dead halt for that last week and a half due to a single anonymous user. If you look at the edit record, not only has he vandalized the article page more than at least 8 times in a 24 hour period. But he vandalized the talk page, posting the his version of the article there and deleteing discussion, more than 5 times, and he has vandalized again, soon after you removed the Sprotect. Multiple admins have locked the page, all I ask is that the next time an admin Sprotects the page, will you please allow the Sprotect to stand for a couple of days (I won't be the one to ask an admin to, so it will likely be an impartial decision)? I hope you are not offended by my request, I study politics and this scandal, and I merely want to continue to work on the article with other interested people. --M4bwav 13:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Technically this wasn't vandalism but an unverifiably opinionated edit that fails to adhere to general style guidelines. Jack Abramoff is a verifiably corrupt liar. Whether he's "freaking corrupt" is not particularly verifiable. But we've mentioned up top that he was corrupt (or more specifically, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and corruption charges), so there's no need to repeat it. Let's keep the opprobrium "vandalism" for genuine vandalism. --The Cunctator

lol sure man, I mean that has to be the closest you can get to vandalism without going over, especially since it was inserted almost at random in the article. So your saying that it would count towards the 3RR rule, if I was to remove it? If so, then I won't touch it in the future.--M4bwav 16:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BTW

I'm not aware that I did such a thing. (?) · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 05:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Seemed a reasonable enough assumption. If they wanted to edit a semiprotected article and had an account they could've simply logged in. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 05:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] regarding the abramoff page

We placed this message before we reverted the article back. We do not regard this revert as vandalism. We feel that because Jack Abramoff is a criminal we do not have to add wood to a fire that has been burning Jews for ages. There is enough Jew-hatred in the world and all the newspapers and magazines are telling us about "Jack the Jew who bought washington" So please lets not have it in our encyclopedia. 62.0.142.2 10:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the messgae posted on the discussion page before we made the edit today.

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

With all due respect and without pointing the finger at the individuals who we feel have an ant-Jewish agenda.

We are editing the page these two paragraphs and are sorry if you see this as "vandalism"

Abramoff was born in Atlantic City, New Jersey where his father, Franklin Abramoff, worked as a businessman and promoter, Arnold Palmer being among his biggest clients. In 1968, his family moved to Beverly Hills, California, where Abramoff later attended Beverly Hills High School, where he was renowned for his weightlifting and football prowess.

Federal investigators believe more than $140,000 of Capital Athletic Foundation funds were diverted to a high school friend of Abramoff's for "purchases of camouflage suits, sniper scopes, night-vision binoculars, a thermal imager and other material described in foundation records as 'security' equipment.[51] US Senate Indian Affairs Committee hearings reveal that the Capital Athletic Foundation "also paid a monthly stipend and Jeep payments to a high-school friend of Abramoff. The 'high-school friend' is, apparently, an old friend he knew from Los Angeles."

62.0.142.2 10:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable.

Just a heads up-- I'm questioning the concept of declaring war on vandals on the mailing list.

Thanks for the constructive criticism you left on my talk page; it's always edifying to learn about other people's concerns. --The Cunctator 00:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me so you are suggesting vandalism be welcome on wikipedia? Look I do not believe you are trying to destroy wikipedia. However what ever you have been doing is non-constrictive criticism that only achive to stress good users and delighted vandals. When was the last time you RC patroled? Or do you oppose RC patrols as well? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 01:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Declaring war on vandals makes us, by analogy, the Roman Empire. That doesn't seem like a good idea. I think there should be automatic mechanisms to encourage/force all editors to review RC. --The Cunctator 15:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

We are not the roman empier, "declaring war on vandals" hence cannot make make us the roman empier. The cosmetics (apperance) of terminology really should be the least of our worries.

Automatic mechanism such as? Not everyone wants to do RC patroling. Just like not everyone wants to vote on VfDs. The main problem with automation is vandals find ways around it. Not all vandals seek attention, some prefer to vandalise sneaky and brag about how long their vandalism stayed.

There are mechanisms encouraging RC patrol.

• Thats exactly why I started the Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit to encourage people. I placed a cute/nice logo to seek peoples attention and a lot of people started RC patroling perhaps because of that.
• There is also the RickK's anti-vandalism barnstar given to people who revert vandalism to encourage people RC patrol more.

The idea is to get people RC patroling without forcing them. Forcing people do things make us slavemasters :P. The point of the two thinsg I mentioned above is to "encourage". Also CVU is a place where we colaborate on how to deal with large scale vandalism more effectively. Anybody, assuming they are not vandals is welcome to join the colaborations. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism is something we wikipedians cant take lightly. See your userpage for an example. Which hapened perhaps ages ago... [4] (just checked your userpage history) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 23:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The C - just a brief note to let you know I support the sort of critical thinking you are espousing. I'm just wondering when someone will create a project called the "Really Good Editors Unit", and make a nice big logo so that I can join it and put the logo on my user page so that everyone knows that I'm a Really Good editor, unlike all those mediocre editors. Then we can have secret meetings and talk about how to make really good edits. If anyone thinks this is not a good idea, they must be in favor of crappy edits, not really good edits. KWH 06:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mod userbox

Hey, the new userbox looks spiffy! And actually explains why you don't like CVU. Hooray! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ditto... tho' tastelessness is the worst that could be said of its predecessor. +sj + 10:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I really like it, and hope you don't mind that I've copied the politically correct version to my userpage. heqs 04:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Nation

Hey, I'm wondering if you might want to offer a vote, or at least a comment, regarding the issue of whether "The Nation" name space should be the article about the U.S. periodical or a disambiguation page. You can contribute your thoughts here: Talk:The Nation#Article title. Thank you and take care. --Howrealisreal 01:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay that's fair enough. I can totally respect the "choose to defuse" attitude. I just wanted to let you know what was going on. Thanks regardless though. --Howrealisreal 14:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon corrections

The Abramoff page.

After careful discussion, deliberation and exhaustive reading and rereading of the entire history of the writing and editing of this page we will accept the article as it stands now. We don't feel that the article is totally unbiased toward Jews and Israel however since we are dealing with different degrees of anti-Jewish/Israel sentiments this is probably the best we can get, short of really hacking the site which you all should know was a viable option but unacceptable to us. You can't destroy an entire encyclopedia because of a few bad sentences.

You speak about assuming "good faith" on this site but much of the things that you have written about this man are caustic and seemingly vengeful. We wonder what the real agenda is. Is Jack "Shylock" are you Jealous. We wonder about what thoughts and emotions are driving you to write this page. One only has to read the history of the page to see what we mean by "degrees" of Antisemitism. One writer would write a sentence containing conjecture and spite and another, more intelligent writer realizing how bad it sounded would edit the sentence in a clever manner, without really changing the meaning. We'll sit back and monitor for now. 62.0.134.2 11:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Account Deletion

I see you removed a bit of recent information due to lack of source? Do you have Sysop privileges to remove my accounts? I seem to be held hostage here. Would appreciate your assistance with the request.-Ariele 16:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ariele

Hi. I no longer am User:Ariele. There's no need to revert. The account is under the control of User:Geo Swan.

(sigh) For the record I have no association with Ariele, other than fruitlessly urging her to confine herself to constructive contributions. -- Geo Swan 02:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restored my indef block

Ariele (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) Hi, I previously indef blocked Ariel. Afterwards, it looked like you were going to block her by a week, but then unblocked her due to some confusion. Since this also unblocked my own block, I have restored this block. If this wasn't not your intention, please let me know. :-) --Deathphoenix 06:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Oh, and you can have a look at WP:AN#Username Block for the related discussion. --Deathphoenix 06:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naftasib

Don't know if you know this, but in Abramoff's emails, the email address from which he got a quote on paramilitary equipment (thermal imagers) for Shmuel Ben Zvi was @naftasib.com, and was apparently from Marina Nevskaya, the same which DeLay and Abramoff dealt with in the lobbying. So they do private military arms sales, too.[5] KWH 04:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] verifiability

Okay, how about a concrete proposal: add a point 4, that even when an unverified claim made by one editor is controversial, other editors should assume good faith, and ask the contributor to provide a verifiable source - or something to this effect? I understand your point now and I agree with you. It seems to me that one sentence along the lines I suggest above would remedy it without doing any damage to the policy. Do you agree? Do you want to try to find a better way to phrase it? I would certainly support adding something like this to the policy and I think if you formulate a specific proposal to add another sentence and allow for two days of discussion, you will find others support it as well, and I doubt anyone would oppose it. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, how about a concrete proposal: add a point 4, that even when an unverified claim made by one editor is controversial, other editors should assume good faith, and ask the contributor to provide a verifiable source - or something to this effect? I understand your point now and I agree with you. It seems to me that one sentence along the lines I suggest above would remedy it without doing any damage to the policy. Do you agree? Do you want to try to find a better way to phrase it? I would certainly support adding something like this to the policy and I think if you formulate a specific proposal to add another sentence and allow for two days of discussion, you will find others support it as well, and I doubt anyone would oppose it. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC) +

I like MyRedDice's basic points, though I would reword it. I suggest you formulate a specific proposal and allow for a few days worth of discussion. I'd encourage you to invite various people who have worked on this policy to participate; not just Jguk but SlimVirgin (who certainly worked on it more than me), and I think within a few days we will arrive at a revision that will satisfy virtually everyone, including you. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

We could create a subpage, but given that you have identified a very specific problem that does not require major work, I should think that a few people can hammer out something everyone will accept pretty easily. As to what motivates Jguk and SlimVirgin ... I can't say. I do, however, suggest you think of them independently. I have always found it very easy to work with SlimVirgin. I know that one of her motives was to make the Verifiability policy fit well with the NOR policy. She and I have both had bad experiences with editors who were fanatically pushing a point of view. In my case, at least, I felt that the real issue was not that they were representing a POV, since my approach to NPOV is to try to include multiple points of view. I felt the real issue was that it was the individual editors point of view, and the editor had not done any research at all. I have met very few editors who can't come up with sources (I am in no way arguing with your own point, just explaining my own motives) and the worst POV warriors were ones who had never done any serious research; thus, NOR seemed like a less contentious way to handle the problem (i.e., instead of dismissing a pov someone cares deeply about, I just ask them to provide a source. In extreme cases, thankfully very few, I have found that the most fanatic POV pushers were capable only of providing their own reasoning, and simply could not provide a quality source). SlimVirgin has had similar experiences but I cannot speak for her. I do, however, know that she feels that the prohibition against original research is complemented by the perscription of citing verifiable sources (and she put a lot of work into the Cite Sources policy too). For what it is worth, I think her and my shared concern in no way invalidates your concern. In short, I believe an editor has the right and obligation to ask another editor who has made a controversial edit to provide a verifiable source. I also believe that we have an obligation to provide the other editor with a chance to add the source, and that it is good to have some discussion to see if anyone knows of a source, before deleting the controversial edit. Is this fair? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] illuminatus

the The Illuminatus! Trilogy article is now up for "featured article" status. please go to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Illuminatus! Trilogy to vote Support or Oppose with your comments. cheers. Zzzzz 17:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger of Iraq Conflict and 2003 invasion of Iraq articles

This is in regards to your post on Talk:Iraq Conflict in regards to the merge proposal I made about certain sections in 2003 invasion of Iraq. Perhaps there is some confusion as to what is going to be merged and what is not. The intent of the merger is not to move all of the invasion article into the Iraq Conflict article, but rather to remove the redundancy that exists between the two articles. If you read the sections I marked in the invasion article and War rationale, Post 1991 Gulf War, and Post 9-11 in the Iraq Conflict article, you'll see that they are virtually identical as far as content. The writing is different, but they both cover same thing. The 4 sections from the invasion articles are the only things that are going to be merged into the Iraq Conflict article, the rest of the invasion article will remain in place. If anything the merger should reduce the confusion and complexity that exists between the articles covering the conflict as the Iraq Conflict article will be the main page and sub-articles like the invasion article will be where the details of specific sections are covered. --Bobblehead 14:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] origin of Wikipedia's article on scientology

I was able to trace the origin of Wikipedia's scientology article to here. Can you provide me with any information about the origins and author(s) of the the first version of the scientology article? Thanks for any help you can provide. --JWSchmidt 03:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion

Any opinion on this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin2. Remember 14:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] September 2006 Atlantic Monthly article

Just in case you didn't know it was up...and it's actually the general's page that it's linked to, but some folks may wander over here.... BCorr|Брайен 20:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

[edit] The unofficial motto of the VCN

See Category:Vandalism Control Network members. = ) Cheers,  Netsnipe  ►  01:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Board election

What do you think about the board candidates? —Toby Bartels 22:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the first

what was the name of the first article on wikipedia? do the creators of wikipedia have accounts on wikipedia? if they do, then what are their usernames? is the first article on wikipedia still an article? if it isn't than what is the oldest article that is sill an article on wikipedia?--Chikinpotato11 22:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review

In case you've A) Gotten no input on your process question and B) missed the link earlier in the "List of Jack Abramoff-related organizations" deletion review, HERE is a long discussion about what's the "right" way to proceed. Unless you've got a history of kicking a fuss with regards to deletion, to <restore a page history/apply the template/protect the page/open a review> really should not be a problem if you do every step.
152.91.9.144 23:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benford's Law of Controversy

Hi, I proposed the article for deletion. Feel free to take it down if you disagree. Rich 05:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Ayles Ice Shelf, was selected for DYK!

On January 2, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ayles Ice Shelf, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daigacon

Daigacon as been deleted multiple times. Why have you chosen to restore it? --PatrickD 00:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The article appears to be protected and I am unable to correct the Christopher Ayres link. --PatrickD 16:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Ayres

I see you moved Chris Ayres and created a disambiguation page. Do you have any intent to make an article on Chris Ayres the voice actor? If not, can you please reverse your move? Disambiguation pages should not be made if one of the two terms is redlinked. Metros232 14:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Chris already has a page under the name Christopher Ayres --PatrickD 16:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] whoa

HOLY CRAP how does it feel to be a wikiperson for 5 or 6 years?

[edit] Whoa

[edit] Why Not

Have a nice day!

[edit] Why?

Why are you restoring all of BJAODN? Take it to ANI at least. Sean William @ 16:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What the hell are you doing?! Did you even read the discussion about it on ANI? -Pilotguy hold short 16:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. This is in violation of copyright and the GFDL. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added a note at WP:ANI#BJAODN_undeleted asking people not to get into a damn wheel war, and instead for pro-BJAODN advocates to get on with proper credit as far as is possible - David Gerard 16:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BJAODN

I'm not supporting or condemning any particular side in the BJAODN issue. I'm simply stating that as it stands, BJAODN is a gigantic GFDL violation and should be deleted as a copyright violation until some way to mitigate the GFDL issues is found. So far, that has not happened. I'm not trying to get involved any more than that, however. --Coredesat 01:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your undeleted orphaned fair use images

As you undeleted Image:Batman wikiparody 01.jpg, Image:Batman wikiparody 02.jpg, and Image:Batman wikiparody 03.jpg, please note that the uploader only claimed them fair use while orphaned. If the uploader did make them himself or herself, the fair use template would be unacceptable. Would you please explain your undeletion?--Jusjih 05:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Nishkid64 has deleted them.--Jusjih 16:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template: dubious

Hi. See my question at Talk:template:dubious. Thanks! CHE 21:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit]

Hi, old compatriot. Not that we've met, but whatever. I wanted to thank you for helping to keep our fiction coverage useful and extensive, and at the same time apologize for not being at your side in that. Right now I'm much too weary and much too tired to take on more challenges here. --Kizor 22:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agree about the ugliness

I agree that the template is ugly and that it is disrupting the layout of articles where ever it is added. However, as I mentioned in my edit summary it actually does communicate a significantly different message than the other template that you redirected it to. As mentioned though, you have a point about it being ugly, and if you are going to change it's appearance into something less obnoxious, then I am going to support that. I would also support any suggestion that various templates should be on the discussion pages only, as they are there for people editing the articles, and not the readers. -- Karl Meier 21:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Board elections 2007

I'm asking this question again.

Wikipedia politics (and policies) overwhelm me now. If only you were running, then I'd know whom to vote for! Currently, I've voted only for ^demon, because he brought up an important point in his candidate statement (and is on the right side). But he's also a rampant deletionist. So who's the good guys? I don't know, but maybe you do.

You can reply on Wikipedia, or send me email (through Wikipedia, or Google me to get an address.)

—Toby Bartels 23:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're (in)famous! Kind of.

"But unlike Sergei Brin and Larry Page at Google, or Steve Chen and Chad Hurley at YouTube, the Wales-Sanger partnership didn't have a happy ending.

Why? Because Larry Sanger came to his senses about Wikipedia. He recognized the appallingly destructive consequences of the Wikipedia experiment. Sanger ran Wikipedia's day-to-day operations. He was responsible for policing the lunatic-fringe amateurs who posted and reposted thousands of entries a day. After two years, he had had enough of anonymous anarchists like "the Cunctator" and their ceaseless debates and bickering over Wikipedia controls and quality." -The Cult of the Amateur

BTW, one of the section headings on your user page is broken. --Gwern (contribs) 16:20 8 July 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Nsusa

Here's some additional background you may want to be aware of:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Don't template the n00bs either
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#related spamming

I listed many (50 to 60) of Nsusa's domains at WT:WPSPAM; he's stated he has at least that many more we don't know about. You may want to keep an eye on these domains for more spam.

I've looked at each site -- most have little value and some may be scraper sites (even of Wikipedia). None meet WP:EL or WP:RS if you read them.

Here's more info on his search engine spamming activities in general:

• posts to various SEO boards
• posts to syndk8.net, the black hat forum (not indexed by Google)
• "Wikipedia.org on its way to become a second DMOZ"
• "How easy is it to SPAM Wikipedia?!"
  • This post has me very concerned we may be getting more spam.

I'm hitting the road for a while or else I'd try to keep track of this guy. I appreciate your taking him on as your project. Hopefully he'll respond to your olive branch; if not, you can use the link search links in my list of his domains to check for any new links each day. --A. B. ^(talk) 00:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Cunctator. I have replied to your comment User_talk:Hu12#BTW--Hu12 14:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Helvenston et al. v. Blackwater Security

Helvenston et al. v. Blackwater Security, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Helvenston et al. v. Blackwater Security satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helvenston et al. v. Blackwater Security and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Helvenston et al. v. Blackwater Security during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I put Benford's law of controversy in for afd

regards,Rich 02:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Nationalism

As an former editor of the article Nationalism, please note that the section Religious Nationalism has now been separated from the main article into its own article Religious nationalism. Please join in and help bring this newly formed article up to standard. Especially important is avoiding a Systemic Bias and adding Citations.

All the best, Witty Lama 04:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

Where did you get the two userboxes you have on your page? I tried to edit your page (only to copy the text used for those userboxes) but it would not let me. Thanks

Tezkag72 (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)