User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/Archive11

If I could bother you once more

Hello.
Some time ago you were of valuable assistance helping me improve 'my' article on the Krag-Petersson... so I wondered if you might have the time to look over anotehr article I've rewritten (pretty much from scratch) and had hoped to get featured one day. The article in question is Krag-Jørgensen - listed twice on WP:PR without much in the way of responce. I'm still in the process of unearthig more information on the danish ammunition used, but apart from that I can't see much more to add.
Off course, if you don't have the spare time for another article on another Norwegian rifle, feel free to ignore it ;)
Yours
WegianWarrior 07:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and kind words ;)

I'll give it over the weekend on WP:PR before I 'dare the waters' and list it on WP:FAC, just to give people more time to respond if they'll like (that, and I'll be busy this weekend, so I won't have time to follow up on the things that get said on WP:FAC and fix potential problems with the article).

Again, thanks. If you ever need any help, just give me a wink and I'll do what I can.

WegianWarrior 08:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've taken the plunge and listed it on FAC. If you still think it's good enought, I would appriciate if you said somethign to that effect there. Oh, and I've taken some colour photos at the Norwegian Armed Forces Museum yesterday and added to the article as well ;) WegianWarrior 09:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Footnotes... took me a while to figure out excatly how to use the code for it, but I think I gotten it. Does that look better? WegianWarrior 09:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Peer Review archives

They're all up to date and tagged now. I did the complete archive 1 and 2. Then I went through the entire Archive 3 and 4 checking that everything was tagged. I found a few stragglers in archive 3, so all the better I did this.

Now I need a beer.

Cheers!

Inter 18:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Steve Dalkowski

Thank you for the kind comments and feedback, I was worried people weren't interested! I will work on your suggestions next week. Zerbey 02:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So far, so good... let me know when you're finished editing and I'll continue (looks like a couple of other people are working on it also at the moment, so I'll step back). Thanks for your help. Zerbey 03:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merging. I like it :) Gonna lick my wounds over the Philadelphia Eagles loss this evening and correct the minor remaining issues on the article tomorrow. Cheers, Zerbey 03:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Periander

Oh, heavens, that was a long time ago! I don't remember what the source was. At the time, I was using the Encyclopedia Mythica for much of the info, but Periander is only mentioned briefly in one spot there. Sorry I can't be of more help. Tuf-Kat 16:42, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

PR Template

Hmm, I still don't see that much use in the template. At least in the way it is used now: Being on hundreds of talk pages, I very much doubt anyone will add something to the peer review page because he sees the template. It is also a problem that the template will never be removed, apparently. Or can the templates be removed when anyone thinks that the article doesn't need any more peer review? --Conti|✉ 18:26, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

That's my point here, I don't see the usefulness in knowing that an article once was in peer review, maybe I'm missing something.. I don't know how useful the template is for you in maintaining peer review tho, in what way does it help you there? The featured template does make sense, because the information that an article is a featured one is a valuable information IMO, while the fact that the page once was on peer review is not (At least I can't think of anything). I didn't wanted to list the template for deletion right away - that feels rather unfriendly - but now I'd be curious about other opinions on this topic. --Conti|✉ 21:45, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I see a redlink on the talk page of the article I discovered the template the first time, so I guess peer review isn't using subpages for long now. Thinking about it, I would rather propose to move the comments of the peer review to the article's talk page, rather than using a template that says "look, there might be some comments". Looking at WP:PR, the comments the articles usually get aren't too long, so they could simply be posted to the talk page instead of the template. With the new subpage system, that isn't even a problem at all. --Conti|✉ 22:08, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it isn't a big problem to add the comments the way that the reader can see that it is from the peer review page. When I'm cleaning up VfD/Old I actually create a little line that states "this page once was on VfD" with a link to the VfD entry, but I try to keep that text as minimal as possible, and I'm not using a template. In this case I would support to include the comments rather than a link to the comments tho, that just feels right. :-) --Conti|✉ 22:22, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Oh come on, you shouldn't feel badly criticised by this. :-) That's just a little content dispute, so to say. I'm sure you're doing a great job in maintaining peer review! --Conti|✉ 22:53, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

I guess we're all pretty sensitive when someone criticises stuff we worked on alot. So, don't feel bad when I have a different opinion that, but I think adding the comments to the talk pages is just the better idea. To be honest, I don't even know how much work it is to maintain peer review, but I can guess, it's a huge page. So thank you for that, and keep rockin'! :) --Conti|✉ 23:20, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I came here to talk about that too. I don't feel that it is useful. What is relevant about an article's old Peer Review request? The comments, nothing else really. Well, why not put those on the article's Talk when archiving its PR request, along with a link to PR or to its archived request maybe? In any case, it is by far not as relevant as the FA or the 'currently on PR' notices, but its obtrusive layout suggests that it actually is. Besides, there is the problem when an article didn't get comments during its listing. Then {{oldpeerreview|archive=1}} is really only confusing. See also here for some discussion. Hey, I got an edit conflict and now I see that Conti is saying almost the same as I was saying. — mark ✎ 22:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry for giving you this feeling. (Maybe I sounded a bit harsh, but that's because I'm not a native speaker of English, which makes me unpatient at times). As I said in the discussion I referred to above, I can see some reasons to indicate on its talk that an article has been on PR before. I guess we just need to think a little more about the best way to achieve this. I do not oppose an {{oldpeerreview|archive=1}} template per se, but I oppose this particular implementation of it. And we should solve the articles-that-didn't-get-comments problem anyway. — mark ✎ 23:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(And I replied on my own talk too) — mark ✎ 23:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Peer review

Sorry I didn't understand how to archive, thanks for fixing it for Shakespeare's reputation. I'll just bow out of Peer review, too. I've been trying to help, by clamoring on the Talk page to persuade people into agreeing?and I thought they were agreeing?to revive Peer review and increase traffic on it, by having fewer "dead" items on it and fewer unresponsive posters. It does say in the instructions on the page that listings will be removed if posters haven't responded to comments within a reasonable period such as one week, but it isn't happening. It just seems to me it's no wonder that there isn't much traffic, when people come there to help, run their eyes down the list, and see such entries as Karl Marx and Eric W Weisstein! (I didn't only remind the Eric W. Weisstein poster on the page itself, I also wrote on his Talk page. Nothing. And he's around, doing other stuff.) I've been trying to comment helpfully on posts, but it's been wasted effort in most cases. Bishonen | Talk 23:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Trolling by Rienzo

(visible in the page history of this page) His IP was 67.15.54.16.

I have been trying to work out who Rienzo actually is, since his original appearance was quite sudden, and must be connected to someone who has been in conflict with me for a while. Since he/she appears to be a fundamentalist, from his/her comments about "heretical views", they would have to be a literalist christian. Also, they would need to share a geographic location.

Curiously, the IP address 67.15.54.16 is based in Melbourne, Australia, and I remember TBSDY claiming that they were in Australia. I wonder, TBSDY, do you speak Swedish? CheeseDreams 23:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Because after all every one of the 20 million australians, all speak swedish and all live in melbourne... The bellman 04:41, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

What's particularly interesting is her assertion that I'm a "literalist". I suppose in some ways I am, but it depends on how you define it. I don't in particular like being attacked and have assertions made that I am a troll. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:05, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. CheeseDreams stated that those who accuse others of trolling are trolling themselves... - Ta bu shi da yu 00:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CD

Unfortunately as an ArbCom member I can not participate in an RfC if I want to be able to hear a case that results from it. But rest assured that the ArbCom has been monitoring the situation. I for one am not at all pleased by the harassment I've seen and blatant disregard of her arbitration ruling. As of right now she is blocked for 5 day for evading a short block that arose from editing The Jesus Mysteries. So at least that matter has been dealt with. Please document CheeseDreams' (under whatever sock account or IP) other violations of the remedies in her case or any other violations of policy. User:Slrubenstein has been involved (CD has been harassing him) and should be able to help certify the RfC. --mav 05:12, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

7 days actually, for editing that article again despite her block. --fvw * 05:20, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

Hi TBSDY. I can't certify your RfC because I haven't tried to solve the problem with her. Also, after previous RfCs, and ArbCom decision against her, I think we're past the RfC stage at this point. From here on in I think enforcement of the existing ArbCom rulings, and eventually, if necessary, a further Arbitration, are the only logical steps. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, though, so please let me know your further thoughts on this. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN archiving glitch

Hi, I just archived the "OneGuy is in violation of Arbitration Ruling" subsection, and then later I noticed you'd just added a comment; it was buried in the middle, which is how I missed it. Would you like me to re-instate the section, or can it stay archived? (I'm fairly desperate to archive stuff at the moment, because that page has gotten pretty huge.) Noel (talk) 06:04, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'd go for a three-way split - 3RR violations to one page, incident stuff to another, and the rest (Tasks and General) to stay on WP:AN. The traffic level is getting ridiculous. However, I suggested moving the 3RR stuff a while back (see WP:AN#Where to report three revert rule violations), but didn't get a lot of support. Noel (talk) 06:12, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Check out also Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#3RR reports; I didn't see a consensus there for splitting. I'll put a new comment at the bottom of that section; you might want to chime in there once I've done that. Noel (talk) 06:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I went off to put tnat note on WT:AN, and come back and you're already hacking things up! :-) Well, I'd better stand back until the dust settles! One question: why did you get rid of the "re-dialling to dodge 3RR" subsection? That contained mostly general discussion, not a particular incident. (I'd put it back, but I'd likely edit-conflict you...) Noel (talk) 06:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I used to know that feeling ("sometimes you just gotta do it")! I've decided I'm used up my ability to deal with getting people ticked off at me, so now I'm more cautious. But feel free!

Please do make three pages, though: 3RR, other incidents, and Tasks/General. Noel (talk) 06:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO! Like admins never get in edit wars, never get angry and start insulting people, never get blocked for 3RR violations, etc, etc! In fact, if you consider the greater total size of the ordinary editor pool, the rate per N people is about the same, probably. About the only thing you don't see from admins is plain old vandalism... But you're right, something had to be done. (Hence my "feel free" reaction!) Noel (talk) 07:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can I be more careful?

Hey, I'm sincerely sorry about moving your request for Peer Review. I don't know what went wrong, but I thought I'd fixed that when I reverted my edit. Really, an honest mistake, and I apologise. Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt though, really nice. Hope sending me an angry message has got that out of your system. Rossrs 08:22, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes you removed most of the bad. How do I break this to you? OK, here it is. Despite my obvious limitations, I have worked out how to read previous edits ;-) It's really ok, no problem. Thanks for replying. Rossrs 10:02, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

we're cool. absolutely. Rossrs 10:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Peer review again

Hi, Ta Bu, maybe I didn't make myself clear. I think Peer review is in trouble, and I was trying to help, and to implement the policy stated on the page. Did you even notice me telling you that I had previously given one of the people you re-listed several reminders? I was already pretty frustrated by commenting without response, and then you revert and upbraid me as if I was a vandal. I'll just go comment on FAC instead, like everybody else (as I've already said on Talk:PR). There are some pretty interesting articles there, too. Bishonen | Talk 22:00, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's fine, I'll... zzzz...think about it (yawn)... but it's daunting, trying to reach any consensus on that page, there's not enough interest in it, I think... (falling over with a thud) You know, you're 9 hours ahead of me, I'm dead, sorry. Not a very lively Talk:PR page... but I definitely believe in removing the people who just dump their page on PR and then forget all about it (take a look at the KM guy that Taxman wrote a reminder to, pretty cavalier response there!), nobody would do something like that on FAC. And I believe in removing the ones that have gone on to FAC, too (as opposed to just asking the posters to "think about" doing it, because they obviously don't think about it). I'd be surprised if being double-posted on PR and FAC has ever gotten an article a single extra comment. Anyway, we're OK. Oh, I see your other message. Don't let that stuff get to you. I'd already figured from a message on this page that since I do speak Swedish, I have to be Rienzo, we can all stop looking. Bishonen | Talk 23:38, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia/archive1

No problem by me. See you soon, when I have the time. Etz Haim 03:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CFB Shilo/Peer Review

Hey TBSDY, CFB Shilo is on the back-burner for me as I attempt to secure permission from the Dept of Defense to use some of there images on the page. I'm also in the midst of the transition from semester 1 to 2 at work, so I've been a bit bust the past few weeks and Shilo hasn't gotten my full (or anywhere close to full) attention. I am, however, creating a lot of ideas about the direction I'd like to take this, largely historical/recent history. Go ahead and archive me... for now WMI Weaponofmassinstruction 03:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

go ahead and move it

Unfortunately, I didn't get many responses at all, and I've already essentially implemented those that I did receive. You can archive it. You don't know of a good place to post of comment by those who'd know a bit about etymology/historical linguistics, do you?Zantastik 04:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

hey man! :D

Just saying hi and leaving you some wikilove :D haven't talked to you in a while. my irc connection is dead and i did a good job of frying my dual P3. so, now, i got no computer so, here's a cookie

and some friendly trolling! :D

Project2501a 08:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh my gosh! My talk page is being used for trolling! :-) Ta bu shi da yu 08:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

sorry, I have been out of it

rubenste(at)ohiou(dot)edu I have never read the 2 babylons, Slrubenstein 23:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It looks good, although I haven't read it carefully yet. The fact is, I am not enough of a historian of Christianity to be able to comment decisively on these things (Wesley on the other hand really knows a lot) -- I've just read a few books, by Hall, Ehrman, and Pagels. This is just enough to know that there is a good deal of high-quality historical research on early Christianity including the evolution of the Catholic Church -- and to know that stuff like The Two Babylons is just propaganda. Slrubenstein 15:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What, exactly,

...does your name mean? My guesses:

An obscure form of martial arts practiced by hermetic monks, which you stole from their mountaintop monestery.
An ancient curse, akin to may you live in well-trolled times.
A special italian dish that tastes faintly of fish.
A math term meaning full circle.
A strange and secret form of aborigines line dancing.
Nothing.

Smile, and tell me: how wrong am I? humblefool ® 23:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:PR-instructions

Hi, TB, hope all is well. Please take a look at my edit of the Template:PR-instructions when/if you have the time, see what you think. I've made your warning notice a bit longer, but on the other hand deleted the two other bits in the template that were about the same thing. It?s just a suggestion. There probably does need to be something under Policy about removing stale items, but for my part I?m hoping we may be able to agree on having something more inclusive there (=saying that not just unresponsive posters and FA?s, but also FAC?s, will be removed). Others may disagree, though. Bishonen | Talk 14:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anne Frank

Hi, you suggested I nominate Anne Frank on FAC, and to let you know if I do so you can remove it from Peer Review. Well I've nominated it, so I guess it can be archived. thanks Rossrs 06:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Peer review again again

I've written a proposal for trimming peer review instructions and emending policy at Wikipedia talk:Peer review, please respond if you have the time! Bishonen | Talk 08:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Explain

Well, start explaining yourself. You cost me one day of my life for no reason. Ordinarily I would get really, really furious, but I suppose I should give you a chance to explain yourself. Everyking 13:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But that is false. There was no revert, plain and simple. I was very careful not to revert, so each time I reworded things a bit in attempts at compromise. An ArbCom ruling is not carte blanche for you to just go and block me because you feel like it. And threatening me with a week's block is absolutely unexcusable, and I deserve an apology for that. You also should not have restored text to my user page that I had deliberately removed, especially when you knew that I wouldn't be able to remove it again for another 24 hours. We are supposed to be here to build an encyclopedia, not to inflict pain on others to enjoy the thrill of power. Everyking 03:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I do not dispute the ruling itself. I dispute interpretations of it when they are used against me in unfair ways to cause me distress. Who says there's a one week block penalty for unblocking oneself? Where is this in the policy? As far as I know, you just made it up. I did unblock myself once before, months ago, because the person who had blocked me was an active participant in the revert war he blocked me over. In retrospect, that was stupid and hasty. But I've been blocked many times since then, and I haven't unblocked myself any of those times. I could almost handle being blocked, painful as it is, but I can't deal with threats like that. Everyking 03:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Isn't admitting that it's not policy the same as admitting that it was indeed a threat? You were using the threat of a punishment outside of policy to impose your will. Presumably I get blocked because of a group of users like you have decided I need to be driven out, so they look for any excuse they can to make life harder for me here. At least that's the only thing I can figure. Everyking 03:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You took up 24 hours of my time, remember? So apologize for the block and the threat, and we'll call it even. Everyking 04:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Octopus card

Hi. I've moved Octopus card to WP:FAC. Can you take a look and see if there's anything worth improving or commenting on? Thankx. JuntungWu 01:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Business continuity planning & Disaster

Thanks TBSDY... Added my comments on the respective discussion pages

Unfortunately, somebody has been removing my reference links recommended by the peer review. I really like the site removed for informational reasons. I personally believe the site's informational qualities outweighs the demerits of its commerical value (which I didn't notice when I found the site). The BCP/DR industry is very bad about raiding Wiki (see what goes on the data recovery page. I have a sneaking suspicion that a competitor firm out there stripped the links, but no way to tell for sure. Your thoughts?

Thanks! Appreciate the input. I do know and recognize blatent commerical references are inappropriate, but didn't know the policy/consensus on sites which maybe partly commercial but provide good information to boot. Have a good day! (Sorry just realized I forgot to sign the above comment Revmachine21 13:16, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can't get through to your email..

Hi Chris, this is Cormac Lawler, User:Cormaggio, the guy who's doing research. I've been trying to send you a reply to your email but it keeps on bouncing back after two days or so. So here's what I wrote to you - feel free to delete this comment when you read it.

Thanks for that Chris - I wanted to mention the exploding whale article to show the quirkiness and expanse of Wikipedia as well as its 'serious' side but due to space I didn't get around to mentioning all of the 'academic' subjects other people wrote about. I envisage publishing it (probably on Wikisource) with each questionnaire linked from the essay, kept anonymous until I get clearance from each respondent. I'm still awating clarification from my tutors and university but might just 'be bold' and do it anyway. I think the wikiversion will be better than the one I handed in, and i might even rewrite a few sections - I'm not entirely happy with it, though time might mitigate against that. But thanks for the feedback. :) I might be setting up a meta page to function as a discussion of some new questions I have (more on interpersonal dynamics) - I'll keep you posted if you are interested. Cormac

Thanks again. Btw, you mention your 'troubles' - care to elaborate? (Email, talk..) Cormaggio 18:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

About the Perverted-Justice.com Article

I think you just went through all the phases the original author did in this dispute. Anyways, I don't want to keep your time, however I would like to say something.

Originally, the guy wrote the piece, was a regular Wikipedian author and just wanted to do an article on us. Great, we thought, we answered his questions, he wrote it, and voila, there was a nice little article. The only updates we did to it were statistical (when we got a new conviction, we updated that, etc.).

Then our detractors - not all of them actually, just the more 'net oriented ones - started getting in there and adding all sorts of information, removing stuff (which is wrong), and doing malicious edits behind proxies. So the original author decided to mediate, contesting Xavier at first, then contesting the whole situation, but fighting it proved impossible. He was forced to lock the article back to what he and Xavier and his Wiki-buddies thought was the last NPOV article.

So, time passes. Someone new comes along, unlocks it, and the edit war starts again. You interject, tried to mediate, but found it futile. I don't want to be banned so I tread careful water on what I edit in the article, so I didn't try to revert it over and over like Xavier did, although I think I'd be in the right to do so if I did try. Anyways, come full circle, you too lock it.

I want the article to remain open, but won't cease dispute with it until I see some fairness in editing. That means...

1. Recognizing that the removal of mounds of the "Pro" section, and of relevant external links, without cause, is biased. The reason the Pro section was longer than the Cons to begin with WAS NOT that the article was biased, it was because the Pro section contained citations that were by nature long. The Con section is terse and doesn't need the length of the Pro section to make the same points, since there is little to cite in it. The article can't be fair if the Con section demands lengthy refutation, but the Pro section is cut short due to being excessively long.

2. The content you put into question with the {{dubious}} tag HAD citations in the original article... these were removed by the detractors (sigh). How fair is it for us to have to prove over and over again something as simple as our history of convictions and our involvement with the recovery of Kylie Taylor because others (the detractors) want to remove that information? Can't have it both ways. Either that information is removed for conciseness, and the statistics regarding our arrest history and involvement with police stay undisputed, or the citations are allowed to stay up as they originally were so we don't have to come in and prove such details, the proof can be found in the article. Can't remove the proof then ask for more... doesn't work.

3. I dispute facts of the article, such as: the "real" name of Xavier Von Erck (his identity is anonymous, and the only thing substantiating his "real" name as anything are rumors... that's something that SHOULD be proven before assumed), the supposed story about the Harrassment Restraining Order (which is correct as it stands now, but is being fought over), as I proved my case in the discussion area, and lastly the citations for the busts on our website vs. the historical busts (there were some removed), it's confusing to say there have been "900+" busts when you go to the site today and will find about 600, what you find on the site today is the official statistic, an estimation of what was historical should be noted only if found relevant enough (there is no available exact figure of the historical run-ins on the site, of course, a run-in years ago is far different from today due to our changing practices).

4. I don't think it's neutral, not because of the existance of "Cons", I don't care about that, I care that the "Cons" are all from one narrow source - the online Corrupted-Justice.com dissenters. There has been much negative said about us, and while these guys are the loudest online, they do not touch news media who simply puts out critical stories. Likewise, the "Cons" is being listed with non-informative criticisms of the site - common criticisms are being kicked outta the way so our most vocal online dissenters can have speaking room. These are criticisms regarding:

- Age of Consent - Dissent over Anti-Solicitation Laws - More in-depth discussion of privacy - The potential for "interfering" with police actions - Overall site legality

5. Lastly, the external links, which I already mentioned, have one fatal flaw. Dissenters of the site wanted to add their site as a negative webpage, fine. So how did they do so? Well, first, they linked to two of their own sites - Corrupted-Justice.com and AVSO are run by the same groups of people, who recently passed off to each other the hacked credit card information of a PeeJ supporter to scare her off. Secondly, dissenters removed any pro-Perverted-Justice.com external links to make way for their own... which were always ones they had some involvement with, such as the Chatmag article or the ABCNews.com online editorial where they posed a member of their staff as a "site volunteer". To that? Well, it's low, but I say if they can have that then there should be a counterbalance. For instance, there is a pro-Perverted-Justice.com website that had PeeJ-related discussions as well as discussions directly addressing the criticisms of the Corrupted-Justice.com/AVSO pair of websites, and it's called Corrupted-Justice.net. Corrupted-Justice.net has been violently removed over and over and over again by Corrupted-Justice.com, because they don't want a resource for their points to be refuted.

These are the same people who removed link after link of arrest/conviction citations as "redundant" from the external links. I'm sorry, but Chatmag.com is not bigger than Salon.com, which is a real professional online piece, and wrote one of the bigger slam-pieces done against us... but that article? Removed so they could pimp Chatmag's article. I'm surprised Pravda - the Russian Communist newspaper they worked with on a particularly nasty series of articles - hasn't been added to the external links, to replace "Website finds missing girl - Not police" by KATU.com.

Do you see my problem?

My solution: leave the {{totallydisputed}} up and let people edit it however, just MAKE SURE the note stays up so long as we are having problems. What'll happen is that everyone who wanted to distort the article will get to, they'll get the perfect piece, then real Wiki users will start editing it and it'll return to some semblence of normalcy. Then we can get back to what would be an acceptable standard for this piece. If you leave it locked, the NEXT guy to come around and unlock it will repeat this cycle all over. See what I'm saying?

Email-me or IM me if you want to talk more, and you may shorten or remove this message once you've got it, just let me know you read it over on my user talk page, I don't want it cluttering up your stuff.

E-mail: phoebus@paoracle.com

AIM: PhoebusApolloX MSN: phoebusapollox@hotmail.com Yahoo: phoebus_apollo1

Thanks.

-PhoebusApollo

PL/I spambot protection

Please don't unprotect it. See Category:Protected against spambots and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. This is a very serious situation and there is no way to defend against it for the time being except indefinitely protecting pages. -- Curps 08:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See also m:Talk:Spam blacklist#Please_add_.28spambot.2C_part_1.29 for further info. -- Curps 08:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please do not unprotect PHP or any other spambot affected pages. I don't think you realize the seriousness of the situation. Please read the discussions in the pages above. -- Curps 08:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit abrupt. You cited the spam filter list as a reason for believing the coast to be clear... well, I'm the one who compiled that list of domains and gave it to Silsor to add to the spam blacklist, so I know how ineffective it was... the bot simply uses a new domain nearly every time. Only blocking on all of 6x.to and uni.cc will be useful (a bit extreme, but Silsor has now done this), but the bot still also uses .ru and .su subdomains so the problem remains. -- Curps 12:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: RfArb addendum

Page histories show a series of 81.156.x.x and 81.157.x.x IP addresses in use, see for instance: [1]. So I don't think you'd get an exact match with any one particular fixed IP address like 81.156.182.159... it would be anything within that range, wouldn't it? -- Curps 01:23, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Peer review

Thanks. Sure I've seen the page, I wrote a comment on it yesterday, about List of ethnic stereotypes, which had the on the whole desirable effect of making the requester withdraw it. And I was just working on a lot of good advice on the Great Lakes Storm of 1913—but now it's on FAC, so advice is moot—no luck lately! Impatient poster, that, complaining about PR traffic after two days, instead of sensibly waiting for my great input ;-). The prose there could have had a lot more flow, but I won't make objections on such a level on FAC. Oh, I hope you're OK with my edit of the oldpeerreview tag (see PR talk), it only amounts to an adjustment to the new policy page. Bishonen | Talk 06:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Grrrr, that FACfailed, don't get me started. The nomination "failed". For some reason obscure to me (modest smirk) people are always FACing my articles before they're ready. Nomination for John Vanbrugh was removed after four hours, for Colley Cibber after maybe half an hour, after I got shirty about it. So their talk pages need to be honored by big ugly boxes proclaiming they weren't good enough to be FA's? (And I suppose you realize you've set a page in the userspace up for the same fate? At least it'll be an unusual template there.) In sum, no, I'm not crazy about the extra prominence of boxes, especially for tags people will dislike in certain circumstances (as they do with both FACfailed and oldpeerreview). The tag is plenty prominent enough. Bishonen | Talk 07:04, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki trolling

Hi! We've noticed that User:CheeseDreams has been trolling on Swedish Wikipedia. He uses an open web proxy. See also User talk:81.156.177.48. Sandor 07:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN archives

Please don't futz with the archives. Sections are placed in order by the time the section was originally created. I know you moved a bunch of the CD sections together on the board, but there's no reason to do so in the archives, because they are scattered across more than one archive, so there's no way to put them all togther in one place. Noel (talk) 12:11, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah! So, create your own private index; like this:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive5

Best of all, then you have all the CD material in one place, across all the archives! (You'll have to do it for the other archives, I have other things to do! :-)

"All problems in Computer Science can by solved by another level of indirection". - Butler Lampson

One of my favourite CS aphorisms! Noel (talk) 12:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Bishonen/European toilet paper holder

Ta bu, thank you for your excellent edit, but please do see the talk page, where I announce the creation of a global toilet paper holder parent article which makes provisions for sibling articles on each of the continents! I'm sorry, but "European toilet paper holder" simply cannot afford to go global, it's already counterproductively long. It would be much appreciated if you'd instead create Asian toilet paper holder (or perhaps a subdivision thereof, given what a vast subject it is, historically, geographically, and artistically), according to the guidelines in my announcement. Please note that you are invited to move any appropriate bits from the existing article to the new one. Best, --Bishonen | Talk 14:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

P.S. If you do create the Asian article, and if you have the time (I appreciate that you're very busy), how about creating an infobox, if that's the correct term, for all the toilet paper holder articles, to show their mutual relationship? Coding such things is a mystery to me, I'm afraid. If I might make a specific request, a small, decorative infobox is desirable—I suppose "opulent" would be too much to ask? Bishonen | Talk 14:37, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern

Salve, Ta bu shi da yu!
Thanks for the praise of my article. I've written an expanded lead for it per your suggestion. Any thoughts? PedanticallySpeaking 14:56, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Salve! I've not had much success in promoting my own articles for WP:FAC so I didn't plan to nominate it. But there's nothing stopping Wikipedians such as yourself from doing it. PedanticallySpeaking 18:06, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening

Your request against CheeseDreams has been accepted and the case is now open for submission of evidence. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2/Evidence. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 16:38, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

Not to sound anal-retentive*, but you do realize that the term you really meant was "vexatious litigants", not "vexation litigators"?

*Old copy-editor's joke t-shirt: "Is there a hyphen in 'anal-retentive'?" --Calton 15:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Question

Hi there...could I trouble you to take a quick gander at Quebec sovereignty movement? A user has recently been editing that and other related articles to insert what I and several other users consider highly POV material; he insists that his contributions are NPOV. I've tried to re-NPOV them, but he's suggested that he plans to revert my changes back to his POV version. (I've been tempted to protect the page, but I know that's problematic when I've been personally involved in the editing.) I just want to get some relatively neutral admins to review the matter and make suggestions, if possible (which is difficult, as you can imagine, since the subject is such a touchy point for most Canadians.) Bearcat 10:17, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As an example, there's the bit towards the end of the article about the Maritime provinces being exclaved from the rest of Canada in the event of Quebec independence. The user in question thinks that's the absolute most salient fact about the topic, the one that should be in the very first paragraph. He has other issues; none of them make noticeably more sense. Bearcat 10:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

IE

Thank you for your comments on my talk page. I'll have another look at the article either today or tomorrow and let you know. Before I check, has something about worldwide usage been added (including different languages, etc.)? And a screenshot of say, a Japanese version, of it, may help too. Kind regards, and good luck with the article, jguk 20:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BJAODN Title

You should take a look at the newest added Wikipedia talk:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense title. I hope you'll find it amusing. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2004

Unprotect the page, join Talk:2004 as a regular editor, and then make your suggestions. Had you offered your services as a mediator, things might have gone differently. But you have arrogated to yourself the right to arbitrate, and that is beyond your mandate as an administrator. I am not a vandal and I will not be treated as such. I am not a truant on probation. I will not present to you some promise of “good” behavior so that you will allow me to do what you want. Stand down, and then we’ll talk, not the other way around.
— Ford 02:51, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

If this is your attempt to look reasonable, it is too little, and too late. You have already used what force you have. I disagree with your approach, your motives, and your proposals. If I wasn’t willing to go along with you under threat, I am certainly not going to go along with you after you have carried out the threat. Come down and join the rest of us, Ta bu shi da yu. The power has gone to your head. You have no right to force a solution on the rest of us, and no right to force me to participate in your choreography.
— Ford 03:11, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

Do not translate my words. I mean what I say, nothing more or less. I will not negotiate under threat. I am not prepared to make a commitment to you as if you have a right to demand it. You do not.
— Ford 03:56, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

Internet Explorer

Anything I can do to help. I noticed Rhobite's list on FAC and I agree with most of the stuff Rhobite pointed out. Some of it is actually my fault too (e.g. the Felten quote which I added, which is probably too long and belongs more on the Component Object Model page anyway). AlistairMcMillan 05:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:WWTBSDYD

Hmmm, I'm not sure private jokes belong in non-user-space. :-) -- Curps 09:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well go ahead and have fun then. You can invoke templates from user space though, if you supply the name space, eg. {{User:Ta bu shi da yu/WWTBSDYD}} will work. -- Curps 09:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I award to you this image macro

For standing firmly against incitement for hatred,

I award you this image macro.

El_C 12:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please stop your vandalism and personal attacks on my user page

Ta bu shi da yu, as an admin you should know better than to make personal attacks and vandalise my userpage. If you want to discuss something, bring it on the talk page. So far in just a few hours you have abused your admin rights by wrongly blocking me, vandalised my user page and gave me personal attacks. Stop it, okay? NSM88 12:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NSM88 would appear to be a sockpuppet created in order to troll. Don't feed the trolls. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 12:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's not wise to be baited into breaking Wikipedia policy. — Matt Crypto 13:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2004/NPOV

With regards to breaking the deadlock, I would suggest removal of the NPOV tag, and editors can then add/remove entries as necessary until consensus is reached. Honorifics and views over the selection of entries is not a reason to dispute neutrality in my opinion. The 2004 page was edited consistently throughout the year, and therefore is representative of what the majority of users feel is appropiate on the page. Of course entries can be removed, moved to another page if necessary, but it is better for an editor to actually do that, rather than post the NPOV tag whenever they dislike an aspect about the page. However I would note that Ford seems to like arguments/disputes and therefore may prove difficult to deal with in any changes made. Astrotrain 19:26, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Note about the lame RfC

Hey, just wanted to say I think you did the right thing re: 2004. Not only is it a stupid NPOV debate, I agree it's ridiculous to have a POV tag on a year article. What's next, a TotallyDisputed tag on one of the List of people by year articles? Someone needed to deal with that issue, and I'm glad you did. Szyslak 00:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Templates

I don't get it - I see no nesting there. --SPUI (talk) 06:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I meant using a template as part of an argument in another template, like {{Message box|id={{another template}}|etc}}. Probably not the best choice of words on my part. --SPUI (talk) 06:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bank of China (Hong Kong)

Hi. It's now on WP:FAC. Please take a look. JuntungWu 01:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nazis

See my reply @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Nazism. I want to point out that you've been very frank and honest about this, and that says alot, to me. Being forthright is a fine quality, and I appreciate that. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 01:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I replied @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Misc_and_reply, and want to compliment you again on how polite and agreeable you've been about all of this, which would have been an excellent opportunity to flame and get into personality conflicts, but instead took a complaint and put it into perspective. If only more users announced questionable actions they have made, for the community to scrutize! Whatever else can be said, the way you handled this situation is a mighty compliment to your moral integrity. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

tabusshidayu, you accuse us of hatred but you are the true hater. You hate the first amendment of the US constitution and you hate the white race. the fact that you are allowed to be an admin here is proof that wikipedia is owned, top to bottom, by jews.

Absolutely! Just remember that the Jews are controlled by the Cabal, and the Cabal is lead by myself. Be scared. Be very scared. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

JEWS JEWS JEWS *graps forehead and begins rocking back and forth* JEWS JEWS JEWS!!! If you haven't noticed, most 'aryans' are moderately liberal and more than likely wikipedia is administered by 'aryans' with liberal beliefs. If you want to prove somebody wrong, then don't begin pointing fingers at invented scapegoats out of emotion, although I'd love to see whatever proof you have that wikipedia is controlled by "jews." Also please try asking random "aryans" in the next crowd you're in if they feel that "miscegenation" and censorship should be allowed. You'd be charmed at the results, maybe. --Iconoclast 03:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of Nazis, someone may want to keep on eye on NSM88, just created by User:SS-88, who left that charming little message just above. --Calton 12:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Like water off a duck's back mate, like water off a duck's back. He doesn't realise it, but I'm quite happy to be insulted by a Nazi. It means that I'm on the right side of the fence. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You consider the right side of the fence to be on the side of the haters. You call us stupid, but you should know that we have a log of your hatred and abuse of "power" against one of our comrades. THAT WAS STUPID! Your actions have been documented and have, so far, been circulated to thousands of aryans who do not look kindly on your type of hatred. You know what happens to people who ignore history....... 88 !!

Yes. I do know what happens to people who ignore history. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to behave like a Nazi nor sink to their level. Wake up please. - 81.198.222.75

3RR violation?

Hi, would you mind giving your opinion about whether or not the inciddent listed under the User:Chamaeleon section on WP:AN/3RR is actually a 3RR violation or not? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nazi block

I'll keep an eye out. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

thank you for making a stand Tabu. regards, dab (ᛏ) 07:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Binding triad

I'm starting to get amused at how long that page is taking for copyvio resolution.. Rad Racer 18:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CheeseDreams

I thought you would be interested to know that, as CheeseDreams has published her password, her password has been changed and her accounts blocked as a precaution against them being misused. She published it on 14 February, so edits by the CheeseDreams since then may have been made by someone other than CheeseDreams. Of course, for all we know, she may have published her password elsewhere at an earlier date. Kind regards, jguk 15:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Peer review removals

Hey, Ta bu, I just removed a couple of listings from peer review, Upskirt and Downblouse, made by someone who didn't know what peer review is for, I guess. S/he wanted people to say that the pictures were inappropriate and unnecessary (check: they were, in fact the articles are ridiculous, but I'm not going through the whole VfD ho-ha, I've sworn off all of Anthony's hangouts, for my mental health), or perhaps for somebody "in authority" to remove them. I pulled the listings quick, nobody had responded, and wrote to the user with advice about better ways of tackling the problem (principally, to be bold and remove the pictures). And I removed the peer review tag from the talk pages. That's fine so far, no problems, but what I'm wondering is, do I still have to do the whole archiving and old peer review tagging thing, for listings like that? It seems a little, well, formalistic. Bishonen | Talk 19:28, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I put a speedy tag on 'em. Bishonen | Talk 10:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If Bishonen feels the need to insult people, he should have the good grace to do it in front of them instead of behind their back: I'm the "someone who didn't know what peer review is for" and I stumbled over these comments, and I gotta say I resent his tone. And for the record, I'm a he.

I mean, I thought the purpose of peer review was, I don't know, peer review. Review, by your peers, of articles. Just a crazy idea I had, I guess, since I couldn't find a single other outlet for getting, you know, peer review of an article. Not RfC, not Village Pump, nothing. Considering that one of the items on the page was for the Monty Hall problem article, whose sole problem was convincing one (1) clueless user that he was dead wrong about the solution, my request didn't seem at all out of place. Certainly not worth deleting out of hand.

And call me timid, but I've never been crazy about unilateral action in deleting stuff, especially given the hoo-hah and cries of censorship Cantus caused when he did it for Clitoris and Autofellatio: I prefer consensus and advice -- peer review, as it were -- before taking action. --Calton 06:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wtf?

I really wonder... JFW | T@lk 00:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your evil twin? He sure has a sense of humour. JFW | T@lk 00:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Steve Dalkowski

I see he got removed from PR, I guess it had been on there too long. Still tying up some loose ends with various stuff on the article, but honest opinion: do you think it is ready to be resubmitted for featured status?

Do you ever sleep? Isn't it 5am there? :) OK, it's submitted - can you add a "Support"? :)

categorizing sock puppets

Since you made at least one edit to the category line of Template:Sockpuppet, I though I'd ask you to read Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets. I've proposed deletion of such a category scheme, since the category really adds no value as I see it. Marking the user page is one thing, but dumping all these unrelated people into Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets isn't going to help anyone, especially when hundreds or thousands of random user pages get dumped there. The sub-categories like Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Sollog are similarly better served by making a list of suspected sock puppets of a user on an RfC or ArbCom evidence page - where one can also give the reasons why that user is suspected. -- Netoholic @ 04:59, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

2005 February 8, VFD

Are you actually sorting out the VFD??? -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Eh, I'm doing one by one slowly. I was doing Feb. 8, but I can let you handle it, if you like. If you don't mind, would you revert it back to the original state once you're done mucking about on Feb. 8? We like to keep the VfD logs as original as they were when they were moved out of VfD to VfD Old and then archived. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Examples of shows said to have jumped the shark

I noticed that you closed this VfD and marked it as "no consensus". This VfD had 11 votes to delete outright, 2 to keep and rename, 4 to merge with Jump the shark, and 1 to keep and merge (this seems to be keeping the content and merge it to another page). This is 11 votes to delete outright vs. 7 votes for everything else. At the very least, it seems like a pretty strong consensus to remove the content from the current article. I was wondering if you could take another look at the VfD and reconsider your decision. Thanks. Carrp | Talk 05:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking another look. I agree that it's not clear what should be done with it (that's why I didn't vote). I just wanted it documented that the consensus was for some sort of merge. Cheers! Carrp | Talk 05:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu is a liar and a racist

File:4kitties.jpg

It's at moments like these you need... THE FOUR KITTIES OF THE APOCALYPSE!!!

u claim ppl threaten u so u can ban them even though they never threatened u. u can not silence us.

WE AREN'T GOING TO STOP, WE AREN'T GOING TO DIE, WE AREN'T GOING TO LAY DOWN AND TAKE IT. WE AREN'T GOING AWAY! DO YOU UNDERSTAND?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Er... OK. Ta bu shi da yu 09:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vedi la bestia per cui io mi volsi

Aiutami da lei, farmoso saggio,

Ch'ella mi tremmar le vene e i polsi

El_C 10:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your threat

Please refrain from leaving threats on my page.

Your harassment of NSM members

Oh, are you going to ban me like you did the other NSM members? Please remember that all of the harassment of us IS being noted AND we DO have a NSM chapter in Australia. No, that is not a threat, just a comment. 88 4 Ever!!!! 12:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

News lead

I had noticed and thought about including it, but I don't have enough time in my week and there are always legitimate stories I don't manage to write about. I'll keep watching and may address it if the issue continues. On the other hand, though, I'm always a little leery about giving people like this the public exposure they want. --Michael Snow 21:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Double redirects on vote archive pages

I just moved the horribly named A list of Television Show Casting Changes to List of television show casting changes, not knowing it had just gone through a VFD. What should be done with double-redirects that originate on VFD archive pages, in particular Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Examples of shows said to have jumped the shark and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 February 8? SHould I edit such pages to link to the new page or leave it for people to follow the redirects "manually"? - dcljr 21:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kidding

C'mon Ta bu, you know I was kidding. Not that I thought the episode humorous. I'm thinking of taking a wikibreak, not just over that of course. "All passion spent". Bishonen | Talk 08:49, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ha, don't even try the old "medium of text" with me, mate, been there, done that, sure you can tell! Let me let you into the secret of the semicolon/hyphen/end bracket, familiarly known as the winking smiley (winkey?). ;-) Bishonen | Talk 11:39, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Spider-Man

Sure, be glad to have you onboard Spider-Man-related articles, and I'll continue to work on those articles from time to time. Note that I'm the person who's always been careful to list both the issue number and the month/date on comic book citations. By the way, my (minor) pet peeve: Spider-Man is spelled, well, "Spider-Man" and not "Spiderman." Happy editing. —Lowellian (talk) 10:31, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Having lost his PDA stylus, the Lego guy was very, very sad.

Image converted to PNG

I converted the image you asked for on IRC to a PNG using ImageMagick (convert legome.bmp legome.png), and put it on my university webspace. Let me know when you're done with it, so I can free the disk space.

cesarb 13:04, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, looks like someone else uploaded it first. cesarb 15:14, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

early history of Christianity

(1) Per your request, I've added comments to the discussion on merging content back to the parent article. Sorry, but I can't be much help. (2) Grab a tool (for instance a Dremel Moto-Tool can help) and sharpen the Lego guy's hand to a point. Then he won't need no steenkeeng stylus! Barno 16:04, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism

Hi, if the outcome of the VfD vote is to merge with History of Christianity, or someplace else, I'll be happy to help with it. But I'd prefer to wait, in case the decision is just to delete the article. It does seem to me that while some of it might not be adequately sourced, I have seen this point of view before, and I don't think the authors were simply reporting on their own research. In general, the mythicist position and arguments are not original, and indeed they seem to have garnered a bit more attention in the last few years. They are even mentioned briefly in other articles on Christianity (at any rate they were the last time I looked, although this was a while ago). At the very least, the basic points and some of the factual content should find their way to History of Christianity, as an alternative view. Of course, it should be made clear that this is quite a minority point of view. --BM 16:56, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As noted on my talk page, I also will do what I can as time allows to help in merging this article, if that is the will of the many. However, as also noted, this is not an area of my expertise (nor deep interest), and as it will require careful repeated reading of both articles, I am not sure that I will be of great use in that process. But I will try! HyperZonk^talk 16:47, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Greetings! After being invited to by our mutual correspondent, I've made some edits to Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism which are intended to be exemplary to them, but may also help with the merge. Let me know what you think, if time permits. Fire Star 19:35, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I trust Fire Star with this article and I have to do other, more important things right now. Borderer 22:48, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sydney Riot of 1879

TBSDY,

Thank you for your comment on your page. I hadn't forgotten the article, I just got caught up in work and Brian Close. I'll be looking at the WP:PR points shortly. Kind regards, jguk 12:56, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Screenwriting credit

Salve, Ta bu shi da yu!
Thanks for your praise of the article. I'm sure there are foreign equivalents of the WGA, but I'm afraid I don't know anything about the equivalent procedures overseas or if they even have such a system. PedanticallySpeaking 16:11, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Music markup

Hi tabu. Please do not consider this some sort of spam, it isn't. We started some talk on how to bring music to our wiki and the good news are that there are many ready-made solutions to it. and it seems that everyone enjoys the idea. But now we would be glad to find some important users participating in the discussion to see how we can implement it all. Thanks so much. --Alexandre Van de Sande 21:35, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Talk:2004#Page_unlocked.

I would just like to ask you to respond to my (repeated) question there. —Simetrical (talk) 03:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That was a pretty horrible thing you said you know.

When people go on a witch-hunt, like you are doing...it really pisses me off! Just because a person has a background of arguments and showy outbursts with others, doesn't mean their ability to edit with good conscience is flawed. She may lack some professional outlook when "putting on print" and not be up to par with formatting, but that is not the same as the content of the article she has drawn from various sources. Don't confuse a person's history fighting with you or other people with their editing capability. That is an ad hominem approach to disputes editing and will only be just as wrong in the way you yourself look at CD for her inability to be a social butterfly. Case in point, do NOT take out your frustration on the body of work built by the person you disagree with and lobby for your friends to come by and launch a similar character assassination onto said information. Leave the antisocial attitudes between people and out of the main wikispace, which means don't simply attack the article for an unresolved anger. See logical fallacy. Borderer 15:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, then change the language. I have no opposition to an alteration of the content to a NPOV. You have to make it so that the article is describing a topic not widely read and understood, rather than a minor opinion. When Heinrich Schliemann found what appeared to be Troy, it was reported by some as a fraud and by others as a fact. Eventually, it became a neutral or moot issue and most people agreed that it was the likely spot despite a perpetual lack of a definitive conclusion. Please don't insert your own POV, just make the POV smile disappear completely. Borderer 15:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can NPOV the article, since you seem to know next to nothing about the content. CheeseDreams is hardly the first person to have sockpuppet accounts. I consider my IP address edits to be sockpuppet edits, for the simple fact that when I've been blocked for arguments I don't want to stop GIVING my efforts to the cause of knowledge(no matter any mistakes). I'm not interested in endorsing POV but I only give to articles I have heard of or that I have a sincere interest in, because I consider vigilante attitudes a waste of my time. Besides, several admins have sockpuppets they use all the time. They'll use them to insert their POV in a Talk Page when arguing from their primary account fails to persuade the person in question. The Two Babylons I may help in, depending on how much I know about the subject since I haven't read the article yet. Your witless witchfynding is what bothers me. A Nazi is only one of the several noted persecuters of history. Don't worry about such terminology, just understand that roughhousing admins don't make good judges. You can scare users off and believe it or not, such a person is not always a newbie and may rely on solitary efforts to do their best. I am a person who needs to ask other people what ELSE I can do for the finishing touches, but if that person can prove too demanding, I will desperately avoid answering the one barking orders and expectations. I used to be afraid of working with my classmates because I couldn't rely on them as they did none of the work but still wanted to boss me around and talk their mouths off at me in prejudice. Perhaps CD feels the same way about you, since you hold no direct interest and she could see you as being a danger to both the integrity of the article and the survival thereof. Try to see it from this angle and I think you'll begin to understand why CD has treated you the way she has. I myself have inserted myself to the survival of the information, even if slanted. I do not want to lose research that CD took so long to compile. Trust me, with obscure topics it takes a LOT of genuinely hard work to assemble. Since I don't have good English skills in the sense of formatting, I know I do a lesser job in making a final draft. Brianstorming is one thing, professionalising is tough!

I'm assuming that CD has similar composition problems. Assume good faith, no matter the ill relationship you have. Don't treat her like a kid either. Borderer 18:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FAC'd

Salve, Ta bu shi da yu!
I know I said I wasn't going to, but what the heck, I nominated my railroad article at FAC after all. I'd appreicate your support at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railroad. PedanticallySpeaking 15:56, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Shakespeare's reputation

Will have a look at this soon. I'm no expert here, but this article seems very interesting! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:55, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Ta bu, but... you relisted my old request on peer review.. ? I don't get it. Bishonen | Talk 21:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

a cranky user I don't want to engage

TBSDY, I'm hoping you can advise me or take action. I write you because you've dealt with the user in question before.

In reviewing the list of banned users, I saw an obscenely titled section, but wanted to give someone a chance to explain (here's my question on the talk page). I took a look at the [[User:%8FZipfiddle|user]] listed in this section. His user page has been vandalized by this person who also added the questionable section on the WP:LOBU. This user's contributions and talk page indicate he's a trouble causer. I'd like to revert the obscenity on the WP:LOBU page, but am hesitant to draw the attention of a malicious user.

What's the recommended course of action? Thanks, Throbblefoot 21:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Promised copyedit

Would you have time to read through Stanislaw Koniecpolski, as you promised on Wikipedia:Peer review/Stanislaw Koniecpolski/archive1? I'd like to FAC this article soon, all factual info I could get my hands on has been added, after language green light I think it would be ready for that. Tnx --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Much tnx for the ce. Good idea about a template, but I have never done one before. FYI, we have been unsing this type of biobox on almost everybody from the list of szlachta, and there is similar one for the people in the list of Polish rulers. I wonder if we could use some kind of a bot to easily convert them all into a template? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:44, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pending deletion and block-revision log

Hi TBSDY. Just to note, for any article you can not delete due to block-revision errors, please make sure you use the {{pending deletion}} template. For anything VFD related, please do not forget to add it to the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old/Block-compress errors log. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Carbon dioxide

(William M. Connolley 21:21, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)) You protected this on 8th feb. Talk has died down. Perhaps more importantly, JG seems to have taken a break. Could you unprotect it?

(William M. Connolley 18:32, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)) You put a comment on the talk page. Two of us (one me) have replied, saying "unprotect". Please unlock this page - protection is not serving any useful purpose.

(William M. Connolley 18:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Also, I point out that you've protected "my" version. I'm not asking you to unprotect it so I can change it, but because the protect is a blight.

(William M. Connolley 09:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Its still protected. There is zero action on the talk page. The main problem (JonGwynne) has gone away. Could you please unprotect it? Reasons as above.

Cannabis rescheduling in the United States

What's up.. We sent some emails back and forth during the pet skunk days.. yup, i've changed my username.. anyhoo, here's my latest article.. Rad Racer 09:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is it with Aussies and random chicks holding umbrellas, by the way? :) Rad Racer 13:36, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I posted the article on FAC, if u want to vote for it.. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cannabis rescheduling in the United States Rad Racer 23:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What do you think

I have finished work on another FAC candidate - Polish-Soviet War (btw, it uses a template :) ). It is long (75kb) but I really can't think of a way to shorten it. Would you have any comments before I submitt it to FAC? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:24, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your revision to longpagewarning

I'm not crazy about your revision. I understand what you're trying to do.... but...

I think even my version was really too long and yours longer. The details can be explained at Wikipedia:Article_size.

What you have overstates the issue. Even those two old browsers, for both of which upgrades are available, don't really "have problems with articles this size." They only have problems if you try to edit the whole article as one piece, which is very rarely necessary.

What you have also understates the issue. A significant number of people feel that pages over 32K load too slowly for people with dialup connections. A significant number of people also feel that pages over 32K are too long to read, scroll through, or navigate comfortably. (I personally disagree with this, but I think I'm in a minority. But the point is that browser limitations are not the only reasons for a recommended limit on length).

The average user doesn't really want or need to know the details of which browsers have the problem or what the problem is. Along the same lines, a few people will want to know why the situation has changed--why the 32K limit that was sacred a week ago is unimportant now, and that can be explained at Wikipedia:Article_size.

I've taken my shot at it so will try to resist fiddling with it further myself.

But can you think of a way to trim it down, and not imply that browser limitations are the only issue? Dpbsmith (talk) 03:17, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and the modified text. But I still dunno... I've had some more thoughts... see MediaWiki_talk:Longpagewarning.