User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/Archive9

JS's Response

> >Hmm. Getting mighty close to libel I see. > >Ta bu shi da yu > >

Nope. For it to be libel, "Sparky the Seventh Chaos" would A) have to be a non-public, and B) have to be a real person. Isn't free speech fun?

-JS

Hmmm. Well, fair enough. Doesn't reflect well on the writer though. Have a nice day. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wrote a longer response to that Cornell guy... it's here if you want to read it. Pedant 03:48, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

*pokes her head in* Thanks for the heads-up on this, Ta bu. Wow, I don't exist? And all this time I thought I was an eccentric young entity with a screename. How stupid of me. ^_^ --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 12:43, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Bash

Thanks! Intrigue 23:44, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I beg to differ

Most people want them delisted from VfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:58, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard (and your talk page)

• I'd leave the listings until the 14th, and then delete the listings and probably keep the pages, since that's how it looks like the voting's going. - Hephaestos|§ 05:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. I don't think VfD should be used for anything other than main namespace.
2. Even if I'm wrong about (1), I think that RfC entries should be dealt with by policy, not individually. Either they should stay there forever, or there should be explicit policy regarding their deletion (for example, perhaps RfCs that are not properly endorsed should be deleted immediately.)
3. I would not recommend removing those entries from VfD.
4. I would not complain for a moment if someone did it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• b) The VfD listings shouldn't be removed, either. I am very much opposed to removing items from VfD on the grounds that they "shouldn't have been listed." Once they've been listed, let the discussion proceed openly and let the string of "keeps" tell the story. A strong remark that the discussion does not need to continue would be fine. Also, personal attention to moving the article to /Old immediately when the five days are up would be fine, too. If a custom of removing items from VfD becomes prevalent, we will soon need to develop all sorts of metapolicy, pages for voting on whether items should be relisted on VfD, etc. etc. ...Just my $0.02. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:18, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• While I'd advise against LISTING RFCs on VFD, I don't particularly see a need to remove them from VFD, even if they are trivially keepable. Strictly speaking it's probably against procedure. On the other hand, no one will complain about you removing them unless they have an axe to grind. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let it ride. In case you didn't see my objections on talk (which you apparently didn't "this time could you please bring your objections to talk?"):

Yes, I agree these shouldn't have been listed, Ta bu shi da yu, but you shouldn't remove them either. Let them die like other frivolous VfDs. One perception CheeseDreams has is that adimns are ganging up on her. Let's give this one its time. I'm adding them back. (Incidentally, it's only been 48 hours). Cool Hand Luke 22:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke 00:11, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

However, I don't think you should remove the VfDs in this instance - an important precedent is being set here regarding the keepability of all RFCs. - from what I said earlier. Merely putting it here because Cool Hand Luke didn't mention it. Andre (talk) 00:47, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for missing that one. I agree. The broad attention given to RfC here is a good thing. Cool Hand Luke 00:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Xenobiology

There is a consensus on Xenobiology to move the page back to Astrobiology. If this isn't already done by the time you read this message, I was wondering if you could help us with the move, or at least help me understand the process. I want to preserve the history of Xenobiology, so the Astobiology page (which only exists as a redirect at this time) has to be temporarily deleted before Xenobiology can be moved to Astrobiology. In this case, does the Astrobiology page have to be listed on VfD, or can an admin just temporarily delete the page so that the Xenobiology page can be moved to Astrobiology? --Viriditas | Talk 04:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mahalo! :) --Viriditas | Talk 06:37, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RfC on Pename

As you are aware, since your original RfC on Pename expired without certification by 2 users, it should be deleted in accordance with the explicit instructions on the RfC page. Could I ask you to revise your comment on the page to support Speedy deletion? I do not know about, and do not wish to know about, your dispute with Pename. Maybe you have a strong case. But it's only right that all parties follow a proper dispute procedure when a dispute arises. In this case, that means that the rules on the RfC page should be followed. If your dispute with Pename is continuing, and you believe that another user will be able to certify your dispute, then you may wish to consider another RfC - but that does not mean the expired one should be revived. jguk 11:38, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey, don't get depressed. And I agree with you that there's never any excuse for making personal attacks. Taking things by the book may at times be slow, but doing so sets a good example to those whose behaviour needs to be modified and doesn't give them any ammunition to throw back in your face. Besides, there's nothing the troublemakers like more than provoking an angry or not well-thought out response. Anyway, I see from [1] that Pename has not contributed since 25 November, though, of course, he may be using sockpuppets. As a suggestion, why not avoid the page in dispute for a week, say. See what it looks like in a week or two. That's what I've started to do. The page can't go too wrong in that time, and your wikistress is likely to be much lower when you go back to it. jguk 12:07, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You have enforced the Three Revert Rule incorrectly

The rule states:

Don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours.

Please read that carefully. Do not revert more than three times within 24 hours.

Viriditas asked you to block me for activity that was not a violation of the three revert rule - and you agreed!. Your misuse of admin authority to improperly block a user is a serious offense.

Reverting more than three times in more than 24 hours does not constitute a violation of the three revert rule. User:Mirv noted that my edits to the article in question were not a violation of the three revert rule. See this note that immediately precedes your block notification on my User discussion page.

You should read clock time and investigate block requests from partisan editors carefully otherwise you should not be in a position to block other users from editing. --Alberuni 16:21, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh wow. Out by 5 minutes. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:33, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems that 24:05 still counts as "within 24 hours" since it is less than 24.5. I suppose this is debatable, but I am interested in what others think on this issue. --Viriditas | Talk 04:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are you joking? I feel you must be. "Within 24 hours" means what it says. Anything up to 23 hours, 59 minutes, 59 seconds and an infinitely of decimal nines is "within 24 hours". After that, 24 hours has passed, and we are into a brand new day. 24 hours and five minutes is definitively more than 24 hours. It's five minutes more! It's no wonder, by the way, that Alberuni is so incensed. Trying to get him blocked for reverting anywhere around the 24-hour mark is extremely petty. Stop hiding behind the policies of Wikipedia, man. Why not try to find another way than doing that? Engage with Alberuni. Try to find consensus. Stop chiding people for being uncivil as though they were errant schoolboys. That in itself is thoroughly uncivil. It's not intended to create a good atmosphere, is it? Dr Zen 02:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I realise that wasn't directly directed at me, but for what it's worth: the block was for violating the spirit of the 3RR. Little or no discussion by Alberuni was made on the article. If it had been, then the block would not have been applied by me. If Alberuni had made modifications to try to come to consensus, then again he would not have been blocked. But he didn't. He just kept reverting. Thus, the article was leading nowhere. Just because he left it five minutes after 24 hours didn't give him the right to force his POV onto the article — especially without discussion. So while Alberuni is incensed by the whole matter, it was entirely within his sphere of influence to have prevented being blocked. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:56, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So is that your defense? You were only wrong by 5 minutes, so no big deal? I wasn't the one who was wrong. You were. You are not going to apologize for your mistake or seek authoritative or consensus decision on your arbitrary interpretation? Is 24 hours part of this rule or not? Does 24 hours now mean 24 hours and 30 minutes? Or is it just whatever you and Viriditas arbitrarily decide in order to silence people you want to silence? Your Admitted Bias Against Me. You should apologize and take steps to clarify the violated policy so that you don't make the same mistake again instead of arrogantly dismissing as unimportant your improper blocking of a registered user. --Alberuni 04:50, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Care to explain why you reverted more than three times in the first place? It is you who must explain this to me. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:52, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You have it wrong. I don't have to justify my edits or reverts to you. I chose to revert the article to a well-written version that is much more NPOV than the Zionist hatchet job that you and the Zionist vandals prefer. It doesn't matter if you agree with my edits/reversions or not. I am allowed to revert three times within 24 hours and that's all I did. You had no right to block me. My reasons for reverting are irrelevant. You are in the wrong. Viriditas enlisted you so that he and Jayjg and a sock puppet could impose their Zionist bias on Wikipedia. Proud of yourself being used like that? --Alberuni 05:05, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu is correct. You do have to justify your edits and your reverts, especially when you do four of them in 24 hours and five minutes. That's less than 24.5 hours, and falls within the 24 hour period. Ta bu shi da yu interpreted the revert rule and acted accordingly. Alberuni, I suggest you stop making personal attacks, adhere to wikiquette, and start acting civil towards other users. --Viriditas | Talk 05:13, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your comments on my discussion page are rude, arrogant, bullying and totally inappropriate. Napoleon complex is a stub and you might learn something about yourself by improving it, little boy. --Alberuni 05:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone else see the irony in that statement? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What's ironic, you're actually a girl? --Alberuni 05:46, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good grief. I guess you don't. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:54, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You abused your authority by blocking me improperly,, then you refused to apologize (?So tough?), then you tried to bully me ("Do not revert like you have been ever again. Understood?" and now you are threatening me ("I'm not suggesting this time: I'm telling you: you need to change the way you edit. Now."). Viriditas did ask you to block me for activity that was not a violation of the three revert rule - and you agreed!. Then he and Jayjg and sockpuppet friend continued to guard the Zionist hatchet job on Yasser Arafat preventing other editors from altering it and you dutifully protected the article for them while blocking me. You admit to being biased against me [2] and then you block me and protect the Zionist version of Yasser Arafat. I think the question should be, "who the hell do you think you are?" --Alberuni 06:00, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whether I blocked you inappropriately is debatable. You did revert 4 times. This was done deliberately. You've also said you don't have to explain your edits. The irony of your comments are that I could have chosen to lock the page straight away (which you would have caused by reverting a fourth time) but that would have disrupted the page: as you've already stated. You were out by 5 minutes, so I used my discretion and blocked you for 24 hours. So darned tootin right I won't be apologising. And I guess you won't be reverting so quickly in future, will you now? So my question stands: Who the hell do you think you are reverting pages and making major changes without discussion? As for admitting to deliberate bias, I reverted back to your edits on the Jihad article and I didn't see any complaints of bias against the other user when I did this. And you conviniently miss the fact that I reverted Jayjg back to your changes in the edit you are complaining about. Funny how that shows my "bias". - Ta bu shi da yu 06:54, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are a child. --Alberuni 06:58, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, if you say so. Want to address my points, or can you only insult me? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:01, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are not worth the effort. You are arguing like Viriditas and Pename now. 24 hours really means 24 and a half hours. Four reverts in more than 24 hours is violating the "spirit" of the three revert in 24 hour rule - as interpreted by you. "So tough." Who needs rules? Just make it up as you go along and do what you want - call it "discretion". You violate the rules by blocking me then claim I violated the "spirit of the rule." Your violation is "debatable" like the Occupied Territories are "disputed." You are just abusing your authority to push your petty authoritarian agenda that obviously reflects your personal insecurities. You think you can threaten and bully me. "And I guess you won't be reverting so quickly in future, will you now?" What a weasel. Please go ahead and contribute your petty complaints to ban me so I don't bother wasting my time on a project populated by immature arrogant twerps, fascist Zionist bigots, Islamophobe hate-mongers, bunch of lameass bigots and losers. Why waste my time? --Alberuni 07:48, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Alberuni. I am adding them to your arbitration case. --Viriditas | Talk 08:06, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I'd like to add that I feel Ta Bu has been fair and neutral regarding the Yasser Arafat page. He supported HistoryBuffEr, who was engaged in the same kind of reverting (with the same POV) as Alberuni, and who was being accused of using sockpuppets to get round the 3RR. Ta Bu supported HistoryBuffEr, because although the other side suspected sockpuppets were being used, they had no proof, and so Ta Bu assumed good faith and proceeded on the presumption of innocence. When he saw Alberuni abusing the rules and clearly reverting too much (whether Alberuni missed the 24-hour deadline by five minutes is irrelevant because clearly the spirit of the rule was being violated), then Ta Bu acted. Ta Bu's not taking sides; he's not abusing his authority; and he's not being arrogant. He's just trying to see that all the editors behave properly. Not an easy job. Slim 04:30, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I'd like to note that you're not exactly a neutral party. The Yasser Arafat page is an absolute minefield. It's guarded fiercely by some of the worst POV pushers on Wikipedia and it's a good idea for an admin dealing with anyone there to stick to the rules as rigidly (and therefore fairly) as possible. I'm sure Ta Bu was trying to do the right thing but it looks like taking sides when you make mistakes like this.Dr Zen 02:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Block?

Any idea if User:Alberuni has been blocked for his latest four reverts on List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2004? Also, please notice the deceptive edit summaries. --Viriditas | Talk 08:47, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• 06:47, 12 Dec 2004 Alberuni (typos) - Revert plus update [3]
• 04:48, 12 Dec 2004 Alberuni (typos) - Revert plus update [4]
• 01:59, 12 Dec 2004 Alberuni (The article is a composite from several sources.) - Revert [5]
• 01:37, 12 Dec 2004 Alberuni (format) - Revert plus update [6]

Alberuni has been blocked by Johnleemk. --Viriditas | Talk 09:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image

I made it; I am the source. I just copyrighted it GFDL. Kevin Baas | talk 19:17, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, I notice you put a dubious tag on this para:

"The 2004 election brought new attention to these issues. In particular, many critics of electronic voting machines pointed to widespread discrepancies between exit polls conducted during Election Day and the officially reported results. They argued that the official results were more favorable to Bush than were the polls, and that these discrepancies were more likely to arise where electronic voting machines were in use and/or in swing states. They concluded that the exit polls showing a Kerry victory were probably correct and that the official totals from the machines were wrong. Expert opinion was divided concerning what implications should be drawn from the cited discrepancies."

What is disputed about it? Kevin Baas | talk 20:51, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Personal comms retrieved from WP:AN

Hey there, Ta bu! .. Well, first of all, no problem that youre from Australia! The next airport Qantas flies to is still only six hours away by car (Just like JAL). I met Kostya Tszyu when he came here one month ago and got his autograph and the camera man told me I was going to be on Australia's news channel 9 so you might have actually seen me! After wards I got free tickets to his fight and went to see it in person. (There, I live in Arizona!]] hehe..

...

Thanks and God bless you! Sincerely yours, "Antonio The Zebra Martin", 01:27 DEC 11, 2004 (MST)

Alberuni's abuse, request for help

Just ignore the abuse. Just because he calls you X, Y and Z doesn't mean you are X, Y, and Z - it says more about them than it does about you.

As for the administrative actions, call in another admin (one with no previous interaction on the issue) to take over the case. If Alberuni ever filea a complaint, the committee will look at two different admins agreeing the person is a problem and throw the case so far out it will be in the air for a week.

Take it easy, OK? Hope everything else (on your User: page) all works out (it usually does, in my lengthy and painful experience :-). Noel (talk) 19:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, do you still need assistance, or can I archive your request for help (on WP:AN)?

Also, I know that "just ignore the abuse" can be difficult advice to follow! (People say these things precisely because they are painful to the targets.) I'm not sure it ever gets any easier to follow, either! Just keep thinking to yourself "this says a lot more about them than me". Noel (talk) 21:30, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Linked List

The reason I reverted back to the VB version was because that section was added to illustrate how to implement linked lists when you don't have pointers, dynamic memory allocation, etc. VB is a very common language that has those limitations, but can still have linked lists. I will change it from VB to wikicode. Let me know what you think. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 22:40, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've added some references. Probably more than needed. I'm currently using Sedgewick, and I used to use Cormen. Collins looks next best. The others are pretty good. (BTW - Looks like your talk page got reverted. Hopefully that's because things are looking up for you ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 03:28, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Admin

Aloha. No, I am not an admin, but thanks for the compliment! I'm still learning how Wikipedia works and finding my way around. BTW, you never did tell me -- did you have to delete Astrobiology before you moved Xenobiology? I'm just trying to learn the process, even though I can't perform the function at this time. --Viriditas | Talk 02:50, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFC VfD

I'm inclined to think these pages don't belong on VfD. Unfortunately though, the process of removing them right now is pretty ad hoc. The time may come when we'll have to solicit someone to formally look after pages like this one, and clean out stale pages on a regular basis. For now, my inclination is to just leave them for an eager admin to delete. Denni☯ 04:59, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

Chinese

OK- I have to finally ask because it's bothering me. I took mandarin lessons a bajillion years ago, and I keep looking at your name. I can get "he/she is not _____", but without the tones or the context, I can't tell what "da yu" is supposed to mean. Care to enlighten me? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:45, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Erm, sou desu nee. Thanks for the info. I guess I did know those words, but I couldn't quite place them without the context or tones. Thanks for humoring me. Cheers, DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:38, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Requests for comment pages

Thanks for your message: I unfortunately got back after your decision to take a vacation yourself. Hope you're well, and that you're not away for too long.

As for your question, I believe the pages should stay on vfd because the decision to keep/delete is not unanimous. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 02:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RfC - Netoholic's talk page archives

I was wondering if you could consider verifying the RFC page I have put forth at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Netoholic 2. Vacuum c 03:16, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

TBSDY - don't you think your certification is seems bitter and inappropriate, considering your Truce comment is still on my Talk page. If I am trying to "hide" things and avoid conversation, why is it still there? I consider that still open, but have not had an occassion to talk about it with you. -- Netoholic @ 08:48, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

The reasons I didn't respond are probably better talked about privately. At some point we'll meet up on IRC. -- Netoholic @ 09:00, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

ありがとう

Thanks for the kind words. I really appreciate what you're doing with wikiproject Sydney, keep up the good work! -Techelf 11:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Abuse of adminship

1) you are not allowed to unprotect an article in order to edit it yourself, especially to revert it

2) please stop deleting content CheeseDreams 13:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that you should not be involved with protecting/unprotecting an article which you intend to edit. Whether your changes right or wrong, it is unsavory and leads people to believe that admins have editorial prerogative. -- Netoholic @ 16:06, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

Hmm... well, I disagree. People's perceptions != reality. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request for blocking

Goldberg vandalized my User page and personally attacked me [7]; Goldberg also personally attacked me twice on Talk:Yasser Arafat, in what could be construed as vandalism of the talk page. [8] [9] . I also count at least two other personal attacks on the talk page, but they are almost three weeks old. Goldberg has also been busy attacking Jewbacca. I don't know if this qualifies for blocking or not, but I thought I would keep you appraised of the situation, nevertheless.--Viriditas | Talk 15:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams has violated 3RR

Historicity of Jesus:

• 15:16, 14 Dec 2004 CheeseDreams (This is a wiki not a tyranny. P.s. don't even think of violating the blocking policy to gain an advantage in an edit war) [10]
• 14:17, 14 Dec 2004 CheeseDreams (Pathetic. Read wiki before you try to dictate. Edit, don't delete.) [11]
• 13:45, 14 Dec 2004 CheeseDreams (THAT IS ZERO JUSTIFICATION FOR DELETION. STOP VANDALISING. P.s. look more closely at the talk page) [12]
• 13:19, 14 Dec 2004 CheeseDreams (Undo TBSDY - reverting and editing an article you have unprotected is EXTREMELY BAD FORM and abuse of adminship) [13]

Rhobite blocked CheeseDreams with an expiry time of 24 hours: Three revert rule violation on Historicity of Jesus. --Viriditas | Talk 15:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually your side violated 3RR first

I counted 5 reverts on your side before I made my 3rd. Darling. P.s. you left blatent evidence of operating a cabal on Viriditas' talk page.

P.s. Note Filiocht's comment on WP:AN

CheeseDreams 18:09, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On "my side"? What sort of crap is this? - Ta bu shi da yu 22:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are operating a cabal, don't you get it? Sheesh!—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 04:39, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

PS: you know I am kidding, right?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 04:39, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams is a naughty Wikipedian

Update. --Viriditas | Talk 01:43, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• 01:09, 15 Dec 2004 Rhobite blocked Cheese dreams (talk) (contributions) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Another CheeseDreams sockpuppet)
• 21:59, 14 Dec 2004 Rhobite blocked Cheese Dreams (talk) (contributions) with an expiry time of 24 hours (CheeseDreams uses alternate spellings to evade blocks)
• 17:00, 14 Dec 2004 Rhobite blocked 81.156.181.122 (talk) (contributions) with an expiry time of 24 hours (CheeseDreams evading three revert block)
• 15:27, 14 Dec 2004 Rhobite blocked CheeseDreams (talk) (contributions) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Three revert rule violation on Historicity of Jesus)

RfC on VfD

See my talk page for my response to your question. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:37, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

I've thought about it, and I've come to the opinion that old RfC pages should be handled by a bureacrat or sysop, not the VfD pages. I hope this helps. Fire Star 04:50, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Linked List

I used no references. I've been doing that for over thirty years now. My first linked list was using a two dimensional array in FORTRAN. I remember another programmer at the computer center showing me how he did it, but I don't remember his name. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 13:05, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have to teach a class tonight, but in the next day or so I will go through some of the text books I have at home. Most of them probably use addressing mode rather than array indecies, though. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 16:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blackface

Hi. First, sincerely sorry to hear that you're going through it -- whatever "it" is. I wish you wise counsel, support, love and hope (and a couple of fierce warrior entities working toward a positive outcome, too. :-p). Will send up a prayer for you and yours.

Now about blackface -- thanks for your criticism, as well as your kind words. Much of what I've written comes from being a history buff, an observer and a collector of black americana -- knowledge I've assimilated over time. I'll have to spend some time digging up source material, but I'll find it; the material presented therein is far from controversial. It's just frank, which always seems to make certain folks uncomfortable when it's about matters of "race." It's not that getting the article featured status is such a big deal (frankly, unfortunately, I've seen some real crap on Wikipedia so designated), but I recognize that for people new to the subject matter, it may give the piece more weight. deeceevoice 13:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad things are looking up for you. :-D As far as "unworthy" articles? Well, the first piece-of-crap featured article I noticed when I came to Wikipedia was jazz. I was surprised. I made some major additions/corrections/ improvements, and then Infrogmation came along and really helped it along. It's improved considerably, but it still needs serious work when it comes to jazz fusion/jazz extensions (and probably a few other things. I haven't read it all the way through in quite a while). How can you have an article on jazz that doesn't substantively mention the period of the '70s and '80s during the jazz revival that occurred as a result of the Black Pride Movement, or that doesn't mention Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers or John Coltrane (and several other noteworthy artists)? And then there's race. It's not that it's so bad, but it's been undergoing major reconstruction, with (understandably) lots of debate, over the last several weeks -- all the while maintaining its featured article status. I took a look at a single subhead just yesterday and found lots of really obvious grammatical errors. What's up with that? Those are just a couple that come to mind. Peace. deeceevoice 14:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chin up

You're more than welcome. Keep your chin up, because you're doing a difficult job well. Hey, Wikipedia never promised you a rose garden . . .  :-) Slim 04:43, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

"Good Faith"

I may very well have misunderstood the Good Faith policy. My point in bringing it up at the time, iirc, was somewhat oblique; Slrubenstein at the time was not actually reading the changes being made to the paragraphs he was objecting to. On several occasions he continued to complain about points which, on the basis of his arguments, had already been excised or edited.

As for good faith in the articles: if someone were to insist on a citation for every sentence, topic, or statement very few articles would be written. It is, in fact, a rhetorical ploy to enforce a POV argument. Therefore the opposite is equally valid - that is, if somone says something is not true and should not be in an article, that person should be obliged to present citation and evidence for its removal if the point is contested. - Amgine 05:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I understand your disagreement. Proving a negative is actually very easy, at least the one Slrubenstein was trying to prove. (btw: one of the citations he used actually discusses other messianic groups. Specifically.) The question is, what is "proof". For example, do a google search on "messiahs", "other messiahs", "false messiahs" and you will discover the very wide-spread and common perception of messianic groups operating in the first century. The argument (which continues between Slrubenstein even at the moment on his talk page) devolves to: nobody used the word "messiah" in first century Judeah/Galilee, therefore he insists it not be used in the article.

I'm not sure you understand my position re: CheeseDreams, who has become a menace on Wikipedia imo. Having more than a few interactions with the user, it is my opinion the user was harrassed and bullied, and turned from being an over-eager contributor to a problem. I do not condone, or forgive (I admit to carrying grudges pretty much forever) the current anti-policy actions. Neither do I condone, or forgive, the anti-policy actions which led to the current circumstances.

I wish you well in your endeavors. You do, btw, have fans. - Amgine 05:41, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I, for one, watched your progress through a number of challenges and admired the way you calmly (for the most part) admitted where you erred, but stood firm on principles. Not exactly fandom, but you have been a good role model. - Amgine 06:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Naughty

Thanks for the good suggestions. I was merely using the word in its primary definition, i.e. badly behaved. For similar uses, see also: List of naughty people. --Viriditas | Talk 07:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

67.173.228.62

I'm pretty sure that was CheeseDreams posting from 67.173.228.62. "Kaise Soze" (Keyser Soze) is a mysterious character from the movie The Usual Suspects who turns out to be Kevin Spacey at the end. And as you are probably already aware, CheeseDreams is a huge fan of Spacey. I'm just connecting the dots for you in case you didn't know that. --Viriditas | Talk 07:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok, cool, but she's violating the terms of her block. And I think she used the name "Kaise Soze" to let us know that it was her. --Viriditas | Talk 07:22, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

no I am not 67.173.228.62, I haven't even got the faintest idea who kevin spacey is are you feeling paranoid, yet? P.s. 5:08 in the morning is awfully early for me to get up/late for me to stay awake

I'm not going to haunt you 24 hours a day, although I admit the idea is fascinating.

And Kaise Soze's comments, if you actually check the style, are nothing like the form of mine.

But, I wouldn't expect you to comprehend the principles of textual comparison as a test of authorship, after all, unlike most scholars, you think Paul wrote the epistles to Timothy and Titus. CheeseDreams 01:53, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've already responded to this on your user page. It appears to be a strange coincidence that your User page mentions Kevin Spacey. On December 13, a user by the name of Wjw edited your user page and added the entry, Anti-Kevin Spacey Editors in the Public Service Announcement section (in the movie, The Usual Suspects, "Kaise Soze" is revealed to be the character as played by Kevin Spacey), which also happens to be the name of the anonymous talk participant on Talk:Historicity of Jesus who was vigorously defending your position. Now, as far as your comment about my ability to comprehend textual comparison as a test of authorship, your personal attack rests upon the erroneous assumption that a competent sock puppet would write in the same style as the primary account holder. Sock puppets have been known to change their writing style for this very reason. I have overlooked the fact that you claim to be ignorant of Kevin Spacey while having full knowledge of Wjw's edits (you affirmed on your Talk page that you were previously aware of the Kevin Spacey edits made by Wjw which makes your comment I haven't even got the faintest idea who kevin spacey is questionable), but I'm assuming good faith and chalking it up to coincidence, which is more probable than someone attempting to sock puppet with a different writing style. Lastly, I find your bizarre accusations (you think Paul wrote the epistles to Timothy and Titus) baseless as I have never expressed any opinion on the matter. If however, you are referring to the reverts I made, I have already explained to you that they were made not because I agreed with the content prior to your change, but because you replaced the consensus-driven article with your own personal version. --Viriditas | Talk 12:30, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Internet Explorer

Just noticed your comment on my Talk page. Sorry I didn't reply earlier, don't know how I managed to miss that.

Your right that the quote is about delays in general and not specifically with IE, however with IE we can't just ignore all the problems that people have had. If there was a better quote, one that spoke specifically about IE then I'd be all in favour of swapping the Maifrett quote out. But I think removing that whole paragraph (as some have suggested) leads to us not telling the whole story and just removing the quote leads to us using weasel words as you yourself pointed out. AlistairMcMillan 09:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was planning to look for a better quote. Haven't managed to do it yet. I know I've read things before that would fit better, but there is so much crap about IE on the net to wade through to find anything useful. AlistairMcMillan 10:30, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A request. Give me 48 hours and I'll find a better quote for us to rebuild the paragraph around. AlistairMcMillan 10:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject computers

I'm in. I don't really have a good overall idea of how the computer pages are organised right now (if they are at all), so I don't know if I'll be able to make any recommendations. But point me at something that needs fixin' and I'll be glad to help out. No matter how dull and repetitive it might be. AlistairMcMillan 11:11, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BTW Sorry I don't really know anyone here too well. So I can't really think of anyone else right now, but if I do I'll let you know. AlistairMcMillan 11:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams

I agree she has not done well, but I also feel that she has been handled very badly. And the content she was adding is valid, so why revert rather than edit? It is a courtesy to discuss major edits on talk pages, one I normally follow myself, bot we also tell people to be bold, which she certainly was. I also do feel that this would not have gone as far as it has if people's religious sensibilities were not affected so much. Ask yourself, would there be such a deal made if she was editing an article on Irish football? I'd like to think not, myself. And going around inviting others of the same faith to get involved in the RfC turns a slight odour into a full-scale stink, in my mind (not that you did this, but it was done).

I like to dream of Wikipedia as a pluralist community, but am constantly brought face-to-face with a politically right-wing, religiously Christian reality, and that depresses me. I generally keep out of these things, but this time I felt I had to speak up for my own view on how things should be. And yes, one of these days something is going to make me just walk away, but for the moment I'll stay and do what I can to push my dream. By the way, I think you are a fine editor and admin, but feel that you need to step back from this one a bit. Which is, I suppose, easy for me to say, given that Modernist poetry tends to be relatively uncontroversial, at least until I go to expand Ezra Pound in a while. Yours in Wikilove, Filiocht 11:59, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

I regularly add blank sections to articles when I know I'm coming back to add content, or even if I know that content is needed that I cannot add, and so do lots of people (See The Cantos, my current big project where all the headings were added by another user before anything apart from the intro existed, and now I'm filling in the gaps, slowly.). In fact, you may have done this yourself. So, I guess I just fail to see what the big deal is, especially as she came back to fill in the gaps, but then got reverted regularly. Imagine how pissed off she feels; these things work both ways. Must say, I hate the section stub template, by the way. Filiocht 12:18, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Possibly you didn't mean to put a message on my talk page, because I don't think I've involved myself in your dealings with CheeseDreams but I guess I'm an involved party. I think CheeseDreams has had a very rough deal. He/she tried a bit too hard on first arrival and got absolutely hammered for it. Now he/she feels backed into a corner. I think biased editors would not even give consideration to his/her views. Some of them are editors that push their POVs across a wide number of pages. The names are all too familiar. I feel sorry for a sensitive newbie coming across those editors. Yes, he/she reacted badly. I don't think the personal attacks were anything like one way -- CheeseDreams made some off-colour edit summaries, mostly attacking content rather than people, and faced a lot of abuse for that. The editors who opposed him/her did seem to be ganging up. They called others' attention to minor items in their dispute and you could definitely see it as rounding up a posse. My view remains that both sides should just cool it a little bit. CheeseDreams should step away from the articles concerned for a couple of weeks. But the same can be said for SLRubenstein and John Kenney, for example, who have gone way beyond the pale. I fear the outcome will be that severe action will be taken against CheeseDreams and that this will embolden POV pushers. They'll recognise that all they need to do is round up a gang and now not only can they shut down unpopular views (as they do on Israel-oriented pages, for instance) but they can, if they play it right, take it all the way to punishing the dissenter. Dr Zen 23:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

Hi, Ta bu shi da yu, sorry about this problem, you worked so hard on it. Sorry also about being so slow replying to your message, but the trouble is we have just moved house and I have a lot on my hands and on my mind.
I hope something can be salvaged from all this business. Having looked at this article I have come to the conclusion that if CheeseDreams had not started the ?major edit? so piecemeal, putting various paras in one by one and keeping others blank until he/she had fully collated all the material, this whole thing mightn?t have started. It seemed to take forever.
I might suggest something on the lines that C.D might be working it all out first and putting all the stuff together off-page and then copy and paste the whole lot together in or at least as much as possible in one or two days at most. Perhaps things would have been better, and the rest of the would-be contributors would not have been kept guessing what was coming next, and would have been able to work on the completed work. It was then that frustration crept in and the first of the reverts coming on 8.Nov. (Sam Spade?s ?bunk? revert).
C.D. would have to cite a lot more sources from people who did the research in first place on an external links basis, as Wikipedians mustn?t do original research as we know.
I hope this might help you formulate some suggestions. I have pasted this from your user page where I should not have put it in first place. Dieter Simon 00:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please note:

• If you check the history of Historicity of Jesus, you will see that before the article was locked last time, the changes were subject to the same revert war issue, there was no intent to leave the article in the vast mess state, and if you note that the edits I made were merely a fluid continuation of this.
• If you check the history of Historicity of Jesus/ (note the /) you will see that that article is a fluid continuation of the Historicity of Jesus one whilst locked, and that people were observing and commenting on the / one whilst it was being edited
• In fact, if you check the Historicity of Jesus/ article you will see that it is fairly similar to the change I made to Historicity of Jesus once it was unlocked
• Also note that Historicity of Jesus/ was well known about - see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Historicity of Jesus/
• If you check the history of Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism, (i.e. at the beginning) you will see it actually is the Historicity of Jesus article, just re-arranged a bit and expanded on, not the other way around

So please check your facts before acting unilaterally in a particularly bad faith and un wiki manner. CheeseDreams 01:53, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do apologise about this. I had my attention drawn to "Historicity of Jesus" and did not realize there was a continuation article named ?Historicity of Jesus/? from the time when the main article was blocked. Actually, I think your contributions excellent.
What I was referring to was the process of your "major edit", which then seemed to take very many edits and took a very long time which I think caused frustration among fellow contributors. All I meant was that if you had worked off-page on this and then copied and pasted the edits in large sections, it would have been more plausible and people would have understood your efforts better.

As it happened, the editing had gone relatively smoothly after your first edits from the 30.Oct onwards until you warned people of your ?major edit? on 06.Nov. In fact also you had warned everone that the article might seem rather POV, which was really very helpful. It was only when Sam Spade reverted as ?bunk? your edits, as he might not have read your prior warning, for which he ought not be blamed as the notice might have submerged by then in the bulk of the talk pages. That is all I really meant and if I sounded as though I criticised anything else, I apologise once again. Dieter Simon 01:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFC on VfD

Hello, Ta bu shi da yu. A few days ago, you inquired on my talk page about whether RFC pages on VfD should be deleted. In response, I have no idea. You could not – no offense meant – have picked a worse person to ask: I simply avoid VfD, so I couldn't possibly answer your question, let alone tell you much of anything less complex about VfD. I must wonder why you chose me...could it be because I am an admin? It would, then, be logical for you to assume that an admin could successfully field your question; however, experience in editing the 'pedia is one of several criteria considered in voting for an admin nominee, the most notable of which, in my case, was trustworthiness, which, paradoxically, is a descriptor I would likely never have earned if I chose to delve into the Great and Terrible VfD.

If you asked me so as to gain my advice as an 'impartial observer', to help resolve some dispute you're involved in (not unlikely, considering the rather feisty nature of your recent edits), you've still asked the wrong person. I'm unwilling to research the context in which your query was put forth in order to construct an adequate response, partly because I don't know you (though I'm sure you're a wonderful person), and partly because I don't have the time (though I do seem to find the time to write lengthy, rambling discourses that are in fact veiled procrastinatory reactions to pressures induced by the Real World).

Ahh. I feel better now. Don't you? :-) Chris Roy 02:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDream's arbitration

You seem to have done nothing more than make a misleading edit which seemed to have modified someone else's post to the arbitration page. Jayjg looked at your series of edits and offered a reasonable explanation. Your request for a temporary injunction is under consideration. Fred Bauder 11:20, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

In case you're around

Ta bu, I hope you are able to come back soon. We need users like you. I'm writing to make a request, if you should see this and have time to help. In your evidence against CD in the arbitration case against her, you note that she filed an RFC against me for "protecting a page" -- in fact, the RFC claimed I had made an ad hominem attack on her. I would change this myself, but apparently changing someone's comments on an arbitration page is a pretty serious thing. :-) Anyway, in the interests of accuracy, I'm hoping you'll take the time to fix this, but if not, I'm sure no one cares but me. Thanks, and I hope to see you again soon, Jwrosenzweig 22:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV hoards

I think your comment was aimed at Filiocht, but I'll comment to you anyway. First of all, I do believe that the crew opposing CheeseDreams are pushing a POV, and I believe CheeseDreams is pushing another. Each could have made, and could make, a great deal more effort to accommodate the other's views. I have said, time and again, that I don't think either side smells of roses, and that both should step back. I'm particularly alarmed that a good editor like you has allowed himself to become embroiled in this in such a personal way. I think CheeseDreams' position can be stated fairly simply. He/she believes that any account of Jesus's "historicity" must give an account in detail of why someone might have made him up. This is a very difficult argument for a committed Christian to look at without bias. I think the point of the Pauline epistles section is that Paul expounds a previous tradition of mysticism, in which God reveals himself in the individual -- creating a Christ in the mystic. It is saying that Paul's letters ought to be interpreted as saying that Paul believed that one's relationship with God was direct and mystical, not mediated through Jesus. I'm no biblical scholar but I know, even today, people who share similar views, who believe that Jesus was not "divine" as such, but was a rabbi who had a revelation of secret knowledge which would in principle be available to any adept with sufficient mastery of the mysteries. CheeseDreams insists that an NPOV article must include this POV because it is at least as substantiable as what we might call the orthodox view. I am personally entirely neutral on this score. I'm not a believer, but I do not disrespect others' beliefs. I do feel that the belief that Jesus was historical is a belief, and cannot be properly substantiated as a fact. I also believe that CD is right that we should note that there were forces at that time whose interest it was in to push that belief, and that some editors want to suppress or minimise that view, and are very vehement in doing so (this latter does not, I feel, include you). I do not accept that the gospels provide particularly good evidence for Jesus's historicity -- but I think it is entirely reasonable to note that others do -- and, furthermore, I think we'd have a much more interesting article, or set of articles!, if we concentrated more on an NPOV view of why people might have wanted Jesus to be historical than some want, but not to the exclusion of the other view, as CD seems to want. Dr Zen 02:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think CheeseDreams has become very embittered. He/she feels that the POV he/she wishes included has been attacked without justification and that he/she is asked to defend his/her statements to a much higher standard than the Christian editors. I think there's some truth to that. I think CD's stance is rather that if you allow the gospels to be "evidence" of Jesus's historicity, then Paul's letters are evidence of its lack; and he/she need only quote them as such. I think the insistence that he/she needs a whole college of scholars to back his/her view has grown a bit old. I'm not at all convinced that the views are all that controversial.

However, I do agree with you, Ta bu, truly, that the section on Paul should have both POVs represented. If we ever manage to calm down the raging fires on both sides, I hope to convince CD of the necessity of that for his/her viewpoint to be included. Yes, I agree that CD's slant is far too anti. I think that the article only happened, though, because CD felt he/she couldn't get heard in the original article.

It's a minefield, man. I genuinely believe that CD wants to edit in good faith. I believe the same of most of the editors on the other side but I think there is a culture here that sometimes expresses itself as "might makes right" and some editors feel justified in taking a supercilious line with minority views, because they have the numbers. And we'd all agree that articles that touch on one's own beliefs can be very, very hard to step away from. Rather than sift the evidence and come to conclusions based on it, the temptation is to fit the facts to the theory as it were. Both sides have done that here and it's blown out of all proportion.Dr Zen 03:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I generally ask Mpolo to provide the counterbalancing argument. But only once I have actually managed to finish writing the other one. If SOMEONE hadn't insisted on mindlessly reverting, this would have been achieved, and Mpolo would be tweaking the article as we write. CheeseDreams 19:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Neto

I have recently communicated with Zen. I request a short delay before deletion. If the consensus is for deletion, then I request that an anonymized version be kept somewhere else, as some users have suggested that it might be useful for discussion of user page policy. Vacuum c 03:30, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Didn't you just say, "I'm thinking we can keep this RFC and refer people to it if someone else engaged in the same practices that Netoholic does."? Vacuum c 03:40, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Since you're an admin, please delete the RFC as the certification minimum requirements were not met. I don't care to be a "test case", nor do I wish it to be preserved. It's been retained for almost 2 days longer than it should have at this point, and it's presence is inflammatory. I may have differences with people, but its unfair that people seem to be willing to set aside the RFC requirements. It honestly feels harassing. As someone who noone would say is biased toward me, I'm sure they would respect your action. Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 16:21, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Thank you, and I of course will consider the comments which were raised. -- Netoholic @ 16:33, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Dubious template

FYI...the {{dubious}} template has been used five times on Historicity of Jesus, which I think is the max for templates. If you try to use it for a sixth time, it won't work. I've manually added the wiki links but I wanted to let you know. There may be a fix for this bug, but I don't know what it is. --Viriditas | Talk 11:29, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A quick and dirty fix is to copy the source of Template:dubious into a new template (Template:dubious2) and use that after you've used dubious five times. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

D'oh! Thanks. --Viriditas | Talk 12:10, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, just use {{subst:dubious}} - Ta bu shi da yu 12:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wish I had read your message sooner. Please delete Template:Dubious2. --Viriditas | Talk 12:51, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removal of the RfC

I think that was a judgement call. I'm sad to see the RfC go because I made comments on it that I will probably want to refer to in future, but I can understand why the subject of the RfC would dispute certification and feel that keeping it was vindictive. I've supported deletion of uncertified RfCs (unless and until that policy is changed) so I have no problem with a third party looking at the RfC and saying "that's not quite in order" and deleting it as uncertified. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 18:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

FYI, I think it was the right judgment call. The RfC did not appear to be properly certified by 2 disputants. It was only right that it was deleted in line with current policy. Good shout. jguk 18:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it probably was too. I have no objection to it. The injured parties had their say, the subject of the RfC got his right of reply. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:36, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Soda can stove

Thank you for the nice comment :)

Duk 19:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: Lady Tara

Please see my reply here. Thanks.

Neto 2 RfC?

The Neto 2 RfC was not only deleted but it no longer shows up in my list of contributions either, all traces of it ever existing are gone, including the history of me ever editing it? That doesn't seem right. I had just seconded Vacuum's evidence as being the same for my issue, though my issue was admittedly much more narrow than Vacuum's. What was the resolution of that RfC? Do RfC's normally completely disappear like that? zen master 02:08, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your unilateral decision to delete the RfC is very questionable, especially after Zen-master had produced more evidence. I urge that you undelete the page. As you had effectively endorsed Netoholic's view of the situation, it was very partial of you to delete the page. Vacuum c 02:12, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

TBSDY - Looks like Vacuum created his own backup copy of the RfC. I see this as basically taking things too far, and moving towards harrassment. Can you please ask him to remove it? I see it as nothing more than an end run around the process, which he is flaunting. -- Netoholic @ 05:06, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

wikiproject

I don't remember any activity in the other wikiproject either before or after i left a note on their talk page, so feel free to do whatever you like with it, i think it's pretty dormant. Kate.

Sealand

Hi. As far as I can tell the great majority of content in the "what is known as of December 2004" section of the above article has a very heavy MPLX bias, and the "claims made by and for roy bates" section seems to have had whole sections of biased text added to it in a way that destroys the intent of the section by turning it into a rambling, repetitive mess. I'm currently trying to go back through the pre-MPLX versions of this article to see what can and should be retreived, as whole sections of text seem to have been deliberately disappeared. Any help is appreciated.--Centauri 10:12, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the historic link. Its all such a godawful disaster I think I need a good lie-down! --Centauri 10:43, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree - the alternative legal opinion needs to be discussed as part of the "legal status" section. Sticking the same repetitive rant into every second sentence of the entire article on the other hand is like using a mallet to crack an egg. :-) --Centauri 10:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Getting upset

Yes, I appreciate you've edited against POV on lots of occasions. I think you're finding it really difficult in this area though. I do understand why. I do think CheeseDreams has problems but I believe fiercely in the policy that we take each other in good faith. Is he/she attacking Christianity? I think he/she's trying to tell what he/she thinks is the truth about it. I think he/she finds it equally hard to let go of his/her truth as you do of yours (and no doubt more so). I don't have any problem with your working for what you believe to be fairly represented. If you are a POV pusher, you are at least one that is willing to talk, find compromise and make something everyone is happy with. If only everyone who had strong beliefs here took the same attitude! We'd have trenchant debate but we'd have a lot less acrimony.

I'm alarmed to see you're talking about leaving the project. Please don't. I really think you should give yourself a break from Christ-related articles for a couple of months. Let it blow over a bit. They'll all still be there and you can edit them to something you're more comfortable with. You've got plenty of other irons in the fire, and articles that you can really enjoy working on. Don't let this spoil this important time of year.

I saw what CheeseDreams did to your Userpage. I've left him/her a note expressing my disgust. Although I do believe that userpages are wikis too, I think that was a low and spiteful thing for him/her to do. I hope he/she will write you a decent apology. I do believe he/she is better than that or at least I want to, but it's getting more difficult.Dr Zen 23:07, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Help!

I seem to be having a bit of a problem with an abusive user, namely User:Fvw. This individual has taken it upon himself to be the ombudsman of what is and is not a speedy delete candidate. He's reverted my edits and left some snide remarks on my user page and the edit summaries. I've listed him on RfC as well. Oh, and please don't leave the project over a troll. - Lucky 6.9 23:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks, Tab. Owe ya one. At the very leat, the vanities up for discussion are utterly without content. Someone else has already cited Article 4. - Lucky 6.9 00:04, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vanity

Fvw, I know you mean well, but there's no need to use language that's likely to upset Lucky. I know sometimes the judgement call on CSD can be wrong (he's not perfect) but I've watched him and he's only trying to stop vandalism. I've asked him to remove your RFC though. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Heya, thanks for taking an interest. I always welcome suggestions on how to improve pleasant communication with other editors. What language are you talking about though? --fvw* 00:13, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

The "slapping your wrists" comment. It's liable to cause him to get him upset. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm? That was his comment, I merely used the same term. But perhaps it wasn't the best phrase to copy. --fvw* 00:18, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

• Tabu, if you want me to drop this, I'll drop it. This isn't the first time this has happened between Fvw and I over the idiocy of a third party and I really don't want to get in a lather beyond what we've already lathered over. Deep, centering, breath...ahh. - Lucky 6.9 00:44, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Done deal. I've overstruck the RfC. What say you, Fvw? - Lucky 6.9 00:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism

By the way, while I'm talking to you anyway: Could you block Special:Contributions/69.194.194.27 for a bit? He's already been blocked a few times, he should be blocked for a year now, but apparantly something went wrong (See WP:VIP). --fvw* 00:18, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

you're welcome

It upset me tremendously. If you consider the act vandalism, I think you may want to find a way to address the issue apart from everything else going on at the Arbitration. It actually makes me wonder if she knows what she is doing, if she is stable. Anyway, good luck, Slrubenstein

Vanity pages

Did I miss a vote? Just because it's not listed there doesn't mean it hasn't been treated that way before. Dori | Talk 01:16, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

It's not policy unless the community (or board) says it's policy. If it's a page about a 12 year old no one has heard of talling us how cool he is, it's gone. If it's a well crafted page but no google hits it goes to VFD. Dori | Talk 01:30, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I base it on the spirit of CSD, as does everyone else. CSD doesn't cover every single case. Vanity pages are pages without meaningful content, they could be test pages, and they could be very short articles with little or no context. As I said, I use common sense, I'm not a lawyer. The CSD page is in constant flux, I'm not reading that every day and getting a mulla opinion every time I come across a vanity page. Wikipedia is not a blog. Search the deletion log for the word vanity and you'll see what I mean. Dori | Talk 02:02, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

About baiting Sollog

It's seems likely that User:Sollog is a sock-puppet of a regular Wikipedian, rather than Sollog himself, which is why I left that comment; if it really is Sollog, I'll remove the comment and appologize. -- Khym Chanur 02:19, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Goldberg

Aloha. I see that the personal attack against me is still on User_talk:Goldberg. The claim is entirely baseless and without merit, and only exists to defame my character. Is there any chance of having it removed? Thanks in advance. BTW, Goldberg is still reverting Yasser Arafat and he just vandalized SlimVirgin's user page. [14] --Viriditas | Talk 03:07, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. --Viriditas | Talk 04:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello Ta bu, on a similar note, a new sockpuppet, Wiesenthaler has arisen to carry on Goldberg's personal attacks and ethnic slurs, this time targetting Jewbacca. Look at the contribs. He's also continuing Goldberg's reverts at Yasser Arafat. Is there anything you can do about either of these sockpuppets? --MPerel 04:54, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

p.s. also note his user page that states "I like (k)Ike!" --MPerel

195.7.55.146 (contribs) is likely the same sock. --Viriditas | Talk 05:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not Goldberg although I find his taste in editing better than Jewbacca's, Viriditas, MPerel's, and SlimVirgin's. You are all a bunch of paranoid co-conspirators - or maybe some of you are sockpuppets of each other. I wouldn't be surprised. --Wiesenthaler 07:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That denial is not convincing. See this notice I left on my talk page. SWAdair | Talk 08:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You do not supply any proof, SW. You throw around accusations and threats. Dr Zen 05:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jewbacca Block?

He violated 3RR on AIPAC: Four reverts in less than five hours. One is a partial revert.[15] [16] [17] [18] --Wiesenthaler 07:07, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jewbacca did not violate 3RR. He reverted AIPAC three times on December 21 (within 24 hours). The reverts were at 01:18; 03:48 and 04:18. There was a fourth edit at 05:41 but it was only to remove an external link, not to revert. The page history is here Slim 07:58, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I will double-check. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Slim is correct. Though Jewbacca is skating on very thin ice here. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

SlimVirgin and Jewbacca were partners in the edit war so of course they back each other up. Your friendship with Jewbacca is noted on his User page so that explains why you ignore his violations and refuse to block him. Nice cozy little club you have here. Please explain how is this not a partial revert, the fourth in 5 hours? [19]. If I revert that reversion, I am sure you will quickly jump on their bandwagon and block me for violating 3RR. Yet, you claim Jewbacca did not revert 4 times. What is your justification, aside from friendship with the "dude"? --Wiesenthaler 20:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You never answered my question. Why do you consider the three revert rule not applicable to Jewbacca's partial revert? --Wiesenthaler 05:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More Agreement

You're right, I guess shes pretty, but she's also a bit sl*tty, which isn't nice. But you know what they say - "Sex sells" (to some anyways).

Selphie 09:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) **

Mainly music (working on the Chili Peppers article when memory serves me right, working on Dimebag's Article since his death but also biology stuff, language and general random things too!! What about you? Selphie 10:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) **

Ha! have seen the exploding whale, it's good! had the Historo-wotsit of Jebus too, was reading the arguemnts!!! 09:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) **

Sorry to say I was mainly laughing at it! I'm an aetheist (with terrible spelling) and I find it funny how people of different religions (which all teach peace and harmony etc) end up arguing and fighting and whatnot! (Not that "we" don't - see Invisible Pink Unicorn) Selphie 10:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) **

vfd/Historical reconstruction ...

Hi there. Actually I don't see any reason why you shouldn't add the header and footer if you think they're useful. Regards & happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 20:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

REID, prat

See the following encylopoedia entry [20] (by F. Prat) And also this one [21] (by G.J.Reid) - particularly sections (3) and (4)

note that the above come from a 1917 encyclopoedia, and that despite the article being subject to censorship by the Roman Catholic church (like the remainder of the encyclopoedia), still contains section (3).

Note the date the Abbot, Loisy, was excommunicated. This is neither original research, nor new. CheeseDreams 00:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ya. And yet no proper referencing has been done. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

You might also like to know that Acts 4:13 refers to St. Peter and St. John as idiots (in the greek - idiotei). CheeseDreams 00:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

P.s. this [22] might also interest.

Oh, this one [23] as well (in a rather awkward to read font though).

Oh, and this CNN book review [24] (which, by the way, amongst the various images, contains a picture of the baby Dionysus recieving a crucifix)

Pet skunk

Thank you for the edit to the lead section. All day, I was trying to figure out the best way to fix that wikified link in the bold title.

The next thing I would like to fix is the ugly bulleted list in the Pet_skunk#Legality_in_North_America section(see Talk:Pet_skunk#Legality_section for discussion). We've thought of a few different options. What do you think is the best way to improve that?

Thanks again for your help, Nathanlarson32767 00:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Considered using a table for this? It is after all tabulated data. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm kinda new to tables. Do you know of a good example of one I could adapt to my purpose, rather than coding from scratch? Nathanlarson32767 01:02, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Try looking at User:Ta bu shi da yu/navbox and Demographics of the Municipality of Strathfield. Also m:Table. I can help only I'm a little busy right now :-) By the way, I like the article! For strangeness it's on a par with exploding whale, but yet its still well-written! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I am hoping that it will become a featured article. Nathanlarson32767 01:33, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit, in re: bitterness. Yeah, it would be more accurate to just say that they become aggressive. I took a look at Skunk Stuff to see what it said about that: [25]. That's interesting what she says about their intelligence.. what fascinating animals.. however, I can't own one, since I live in Virginia.Nathanlarson32767 13:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One edit sockpuppet

Your three revert rule means nothing. [26] --Wiesenthaler 06:29, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jewbacca's last "copyedit" was a revert

I don't know how you can't see that. [27]. The external link he removed was originally in the article. Copy edits plus reverts are reverts. He made 4 in 5 hours. I think you are being lenient on your "dude" friend. He should be blocked. Why didn't you? Please explain. Now look what you get. [28] --Wiesenthaler 06:40, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good thing you are there to protect Jewbacca

Where were you when he was vandalizing my User page? --Wiesenthaler 08:18, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not that hard to find. Just look at the User page. User_talk:Wiesenthaler#Evidence_of_Jewbaca.27s_vandalism_to_my_User_page

And while you're at it why don't you do something about Slim? Or the other requests right above here on your Talk page? --Wiesenthaler 08:29, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) [29]

Wiesenthaler

I'll take your advice, Ta bu shi da yu. The problem is that he's deleting properly referenced material; has referred to "pigs" and "bastards"; wrote "I love kike" on his user page, and edited List of ethnic slurs to include (among other gems) "German oven mitt – Refers to incinerated Jews in World War II"; "Nickel nose – a jew. Refers to facial characteristics and money-centered nature" and "Gargamel – U.S. Jews. refers to greedy money-grubbing nature of Smurf by same name." His defense is that the page is supposed to include slurs, but it's supposed to describe those slurs neutrally, not as though the editor agrees with them. It's hardly what could be called good-faith editing. Anyway, thanks for the input, which I appreciate. Best, Slim 09:44, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

User page abuse by Wiesenthaler

Aloha, TBSDY. Wiesenthaler's user page currently promotes hatred against Jews in the form of newspaper snippets. This has absolutely nothing to do with the user or the encyclopedia. According to Wikipedia talk:User page, the user page should only contain biographic info, personal views, opinions, and discussion about the encyclopedia. Wiesenthaler's current user page does not do this. If someone created a user page that contained nothing but newspaper clippings that promoted hatred against Muslims or Christians, would this be acceptable? Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. --Viriditas | Talk 10:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's fine. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the problem. Thanks for your reply. --Viriditas | Talk 10:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I think you missed a point when you unblocked Wiesenthaler. The reason for his blocking was not that he was a sock puppet, but rather that he's a sock puppet created for the purpose of violating policy (in this case, 3RR, in conjunction with User:Goldberg. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I came here to say the same thing as Jpgordon. The block policy says that "Sockpuppets that were created to violate Wikipedia policy should be blocked permanently." Wikipedia:No personal attacks was violated by this sockpuppet here Note that the user behind this sockpuppet hasn't been banned. The autoblocker will give him a 24 hour timeout that's all. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not Goldberg and you can't prove otherwise because it is not true. I was blocked because MathKnight went whining about "anti-semitism incitement" based on my User page and some admin apparently believed him. Now the not rake blames me for personal attacks. Prove it. Where? This is just typical of those who gang up on their enemies without justification or evidence. Thankfully TBSDY is on the ball and not so easily fooled. I have violated no policy and I should receive some warning and description of the policy if I am. Just having some whiney Israeli complaining about anti-semitism shouldn't suffice to block users. Selective enforcement of etiquette to silence editors is bias and censorship. Where is the policy, where is the evidence of violation? Where is the accountability? --Wiesenthaler 22:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Weisenrthaler. Firstly I am not one of you enemies. I don't know you. The link I posted above is a very clear personal attack. Sockpuppets that are created in order to make personal attacks are frequently banned. You are not being treated any differently than anyone else in this respect. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• You might want to check the following, with evidences against User:Wiesenthaler abusive behaivor and racist comments: Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress#User:Wiesenthaler, abusive comments and personal attacks, and his user page which contain inciting text against Jews, which is ugly and even illegal in some countries (such as Germany and France). I don't think I need to note that such things are against Wikipedia's rules and spirit. MathKnight 22:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu check the wikipedia:blocking policy Sockpuppets are blocked indefinately. Not that the autoblocker only blocks the IP for 24 hours. The user behind the sockpuppet only receives a temp block. He or she is then free to go back to their original account. It's only the sockpuppet that is indefinately blocked. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Btrieve

I did some more rewording of your intro, but it probably still needs work. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 _talk]] 16:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I reworked one of the illustrations in Illustrator to make it more readable, and resized the thumbnail of another illustration for the same reason. Please compare against the previous versions and let me know if you think it's an improvement.

As for the wording, the "Client-based" section is still a bit awkward - the first sentence seems to have a redundant "directly", and the reference to "checks the configuration" is also unclear to a first-time reader who isn't familiar with the application. Overall, the calling order described in the text doesn't clearly follow the illustration, so I'm wondering if they are referring to the same thing?

I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to fix it myself, so perhaps we could work on explaining the calling sequence to the reader in a more understandable manner?

Overall, as a middle-aged software developer, I congratulate you for bothering to describe the history of such an old application before all of the details are lost to antiquity.

Cheers,

— DV 10:00, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation to the Computing project, but I don't spend too much time on computing-related articles due to the nature of my day job.

Your article on Btrieve caught my eye because I'm getting up to speed on MySQL and PHP for a web site I'm building, and I ran across the Btrieve article while I was browsing through database-related topics.

Thanks again for the interesting article. — DV 12:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)