User:Everyking/Talk Archive 3

Talk from August 29, 2004 to November 26, 2004:

Ripley
Hello, Everyking ! You seem to like the Ripley article so much. Why don't you come to Collaboration of the week and vote for it ? :-) Cheers ! -- PFHLai 23:35, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)

Enver Hoxha
I like some of the re-workings of that article, I'm sorry if I caused trouble but I'm very new to this whole NPOV policy. So long as you state that Hoxha was a Communist leader I'm fine...because I've watched Albanian Propaganda films and it states that Hoxha is a Communist leader. Thanks ^_^--Gustuv 22:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just Wondering
Heard that you live in Augusta (thought I was the only one). What part of this lonely town you editing from? MattSal 01:39, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

B-Movie Bandit
With all due respect, I am THRILLED that the Bandit is blocked and I fail to understand your opposition to blocking him. There has been more consensus on this problem than any other in recent memory. I have better things to do on this site than play janitor to a moron and I'm sure you do too. The nightmare is over and all of us have won. I genuinely appreciate your concern and your willingness to propose solutions. - Lucky 6.9 17:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Joseph Smith Jr.
Thanks for keeping an eye on the article. Good revert. Tom 02:33, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Trial of the Sixteen
A view of someone from the outside is exactly what I needed. What do you find POV and what can be done to correct that? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 19:35, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, that was my problem - how to write an artcicle on Soviet crime, without stressing the word crime too much. The problem is that those politicians (the elite of the Polish society) were indeed invited for a conference and then imprisoned and tortured. It's similar problem to that of the Great Purges - that article seems anti-stalinist too, but how could it be corrected without resorting to commie propaganda, which seems even worse POV..? I don't know. Let me know should you have any suggestions. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 19:48, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Minor change to Stalin article
I notice that you reverted my change to the "Death of one man" quote. Can you please explain why this was done? There has been a long discussion at Talk:Famous_non-quotation as to why this was changed. One Salient Oversight 05:57, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hoxha again
The People's Socialist Republic of Albania was a country with a socialist system led by a communist party that claimed to be guiding the country through the long-term transition to communism. Say that in the article than...I will be staisfied. Also I have watched many albanian propaganda films which refer to Hoxha as "A Marxist-Leninist Guide" Not a leader (although I know behind the scenes I know he was the de facto leader).--Gustuv 01:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Also would you know any wikipedian Communists? I can't find any here--Gustuv 01:06, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I going to read some Hoxha's writings when I find the time, Honestly I've read nothing from Hoxha (I've read mostly Marx, Lenin, Engels and some of Mao)--Gustuv 01:24, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * In that case I wasn't too sure...He could be considered De-facto leader in some case but in others he could be considered the genuine leader.--Gustuv 01:37, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mistake
Sorry it was in the original article.. you just edited the link. My mistakeMozzerati 14:06, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your support re: my adminship. Jayjg 18:54, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK Soda
Thanks for correcting my spelling and grammar constantly. I guess I'm more dependent on the squiggly lines in MS Word than I thought... --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:53, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the Tropical Cyclone edits
Sorry if some of it was a little sloppy. I'm sick as a dog. If you are in an editting mood, feel free to have a run at [polar low]s and [arctic cyclone]s too ;) (the latter was completely incorrect use of the term arctic cyclone, so I had to edit it.. then I had to write about polar lows. Guess that'll teach me :P) -- 24.150.30.69

Context
Thanks for catching that. If you were watching my edits like a hawk, you'd have noticed that about a quarter way from the end of the list, I started keeping that in, as I suddenly realized that saying U.S. state was better than saying American politician. And in some unfortunate cases, I eliminated both. Thanks, I guess I'll have to go on another cleanup run. :) --Golbez 20:19, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * I preferred "American politician" to "U.S. state of Alabama", but the former seemed .. I dunno. Not all these men are politicians; for example, if I were stubbing presidents, would I have marked Eisenhower or Washington as a politician? Furthermore, most non-stubbed articles [see Bill Clinton] don't say he's a politician. But, the most non-stubby Ala. Gov., George Wallace, does say as such. I guess I think US State is a better marker. Furthermore, it brings more exposure to a well-designed article. :) But I'll look around. Maybe there's room for both. --Golbez 20:33, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Rudolf Bultmann
I'm interested in why you think this a personal of view. How would write about the change in gospel interpretation and why changes in biblical scholarship are not looked forward to? And why they change at all?


 * The parts of your contribution that are POV are bolded: "The recognition that the gospels are the preached reinterpretations of Jesus' life and teachings by the early Christians is growing. The clues, the similiarities, differences and literary art within the gosple stories had been overlooked in favor of restricted traditions and biblical ignorance. Even biblical scholarship must keep up with science and our growing knowledge about the peoples of the ancient past and their literary skills and methods."


 * If you can find a way to say all that that isn't redundant with what's already in the article and isn't so POV, that's fine. You just need to be careful not to state opinion as fact; it's not that I personally disagree with what you wrote. Everyking 20:00, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I might come up with something. It won't be easy. I would like to show where modern biblical scholarship is today due to the fine detective work of Bultmann, Raymond E. Brown, and others, and the clues that caused it to happen.Kazuba 24 Sep 2004

Date Styles
I am sorry about changing the date styles on a number of articles to the ISO standard. I was under the impression that only those dates written in this standard would change according the a user's preferences (ie 17 February 2000 or February 17, 2000). Hence, I thought I was helping. I now know that is not the case, and shan't bother doing it anymore (unless the date is incorrectly formatted). Those edits I did were pointless, but they should be okay. Again, my mistake, sorry. Joseph Philipsson 20:41, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

gingrey
thanks. the community will need to deal with this user with regard to some other articles to0. Alteripse 20:05, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) I fear our fried will be back soon, but let's see what happens. Alteripse 02:18, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) 24 hours. Protect again? Alteripse 18:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm really unsure how to deal with this guy. He's also gone after swing state, as well as Phil Gingrey and Rick Crawford. What should be done? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:59, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Dr. Michael M. Krop High School
Thank you for voting KEEP. Thank you for your support. Greatly appreciated!--AAAAA 22:06, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Theodore G. Bilbo
Thanks for fixing that. Don't know how a simple, garden-variety edit somehow resulted in the wipeout of the entire bottom of the page. Thanks again.

Rlquall 16:48, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

U.S. Southern wikipedians' notice board/USSCOTW
The Southern Collaboration of the Week board is now up. Please vote or nominate other articles. The first voting ends on October 3. Mike H 14:20, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Copyright
1.) Go to www.bookrags.com They're saying, I quote: "free book notes, essays and literature study guides online" 2.) Go to http://www.bookrags.com/cgi/cite.php?type=bio&id=david-dinkins "How to Cite this Biography" Read it. They write, that I (Wikipedia) can cite them, because it's free. Please respond to this. It's for the good of the game, because David Norman Dinkins was the first African-American mayor of New York and still on Wikipedia there is very little article on him.

Please help! User:Darwinek 18:04, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Poland
Why are you preventing me from removing the gross distortions introduced into People's Republic of Poland by the well-known communist apologist User:172? Adam 11:59, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Adam 12:45, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * From January 1942 on, the Soviet-oriented Communists and left-wing socialist groups gained influence in Poland. The Polish Workers' Party (PPR) and its military wing developed from their ranks.
 * This is rubbish. They did not "gain influence." They were imposed on Poland by the Soviets.
 * Western-oriented politicians such as Stanislaw Mikolajczyk
 * This is a snide slander, typical of 172, intended to suggest Mikolajczyk was an agent of the West instead of a Polish patriot.
 * Soviet-oriented parties held the balance of power, especially the PPR
 * This is a distortion. The communists were not "Soviet-oriented," they were Soviet-controlled, and there was no other pro-Soviet party.
 * It must be said also that the Polish government-in-exile in London could not help the Polish cause.
 * I wrote, "It must be said also that the Polish government-in-exile in London did not help the Polish cause." which makes much more sense. (I'm not certain that this was 172's edit, by the way)
 * This text has been removed: "They imposed themselves on the country through a reign of terror against the main non-Communist party, Mikolajczyk's Polish Peasant Party (Polskie Stronnictwo Ludowe PSL), and also against the veterans of the wartime Home Army (AK) and of the Polish armies which had fought in the west. They also resorted to systematic vote-rigging, both in a referendum in June 1946 which legitimised the provisional government and in the January 1947 legislative elections, which returned a massive majority for the Communist-controlled "Democratic Bloc." "
 * You think this is a neutral edit?
 * For example, there was strong suspicion that the U.S. rigged the 1948 Italian elections because it looked like the communists were on the verge of victory.
 * This is both untrue and irrelevant. But it is striking evidence of the political bias which 172 is trying to insinuate into the article.

Most of the POV battles at this article have actually been between me and some Polish editors, who wanted to turn it into a Polish nationalist and anti-Semitic tract. That is why some of the sections are still in rather bad English. 172 was the first person to try and introduce pro-communist edits. I didn't rvt them at the time because I had a truce with 172 while we were opposing the LaRouchites. Now I'm back. I will see what "conmpromise" text you can come up with for the above sentences, but the simplest thing to do is restore my edits. Adam 13:14, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

C.G.E. Mannerheim
Hi, I noticed you reverted my edits from "Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim" to "Carl Gustaf Mannerheim". While I appreciate the fact that the full name of this Finnish military leader is rather long, I'd like to point out that he is not known here in Finland under that shorter name (leaving out Emil) - that is not the name commonly used. In addition to his full name, the marshal is referred to as C.G.E. Mannerheim, marshal Mannerheim or simply just Mannerheim (that's how he also signed documents, by the way). However, I feel his complete name should be used as the page title. When it comes to links, there's of course the possibility for abbreviation. Wempain 23:12, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rákosi was a jew
Rákosi was a jew, as was almost every important "Hungarian" communist I can think of, including Kun Béla. I am Hungarian, you are not. You are ignorant of Hungarian history, so do not revert my edits. 81.182.237.35


 * Your apparent belief that Jews can't be Hungarians is rather problematic, though. Everyking 00:07, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Poland
Everyking, I am still hoping to see your proposed compromise wording for People's Republic of Poland. Otherwise I will restore my original text.

In relation to Rákosi, the joke used to run: "Why is Rákosi in the Politburo?" "Because they need someone who can sign papers on a Saturday." This would seem to suggest that he was the only prominent Party leader who was not Jewish. Adam 01:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Articles should have neither an anti-Communist nor a pro-Communist slant. They should tell the truth. Adam 02:00, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Table
Thanks for making the table in the "I Dream" section of the S Club 8 article. I had to change the George Wood link, since it didn't point to an article on the correct person, but the rest of it was just like I wanted it. :) Could you point me to the page that explains the wiki-markup you used? I know I've seen it before, but I have no clue where that was. --[[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 14:48, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Cool, Cool Mountain
You're right, thanks for fixing it. – Andre ( talk ) 23:00, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Hot Shots!
Please, King. If this is so notable - and it is - please do more than just wikify the Bandit's BS. This is part of what I've been screaming about for months. Thanks for hopefully understanding my frustration. - Lucky 6.9 00:52, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * LOL! A Bandit stub as a featured article candidate?  I love it!  If it wouldn't be construed as interrupting the site to make a point, I'd do it.  Maybe next April Fools' Day.  Seriously, I've tried listing these on VfD and gotten soundly spanked for it.  So, I either redirect them or post a speedy notice on them in hopes they'll either be deleted or fixed.  Jimbo Wales' unofficial decree was that speedy deletion is OK.  Would you be willing to pull a bit of info off of IMDb to fill this thing out?  I'm sure we'd have a useful stub about a movie which, quite frankly, I'm surprised wasn't listed in the first place. - Lucky 6.9 01:02, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Filled in the "plot," such as it was. :^) - Lucky 6.9 01:19, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliment. I only wish the Bandit wasn't in the edit history!  Oh, well...the Bandit earned my begrudging gratitude this time simply because he managed to land on a red link conspicuous by its absence. - Lucky 6.9 04:10, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Great Purge
If usually sensible editors like you are going to encourage these fools I will withdraw from the article and let it return to the rubbish it was before. Adam 12:16, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, we should say what happened. Absurd nonsense such as what Molotov said in his old age to excuse his role in Stalin's crimes is not worthy of notice, let alone inclusion in a serious article. Adam 13:12, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have now withdrawn from this article, and also from Khmer Rouge. I will now go through my watchlist and withdraw from all articles on modern historical and political topics, since I can longer stand having to conduct these endless stupid circular arguments over elementary facts of history with malicious fools like Shorne, while being sabotaged by people like you and Fred Bauder who ought to know better. I am in fact seriously considering withdrawing from Wikipedia altogether, since I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that its structure does not offer any support to those attempting to write intellectually credible articles on historical-political subjects. Adam 13:48, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Requests for comment Shorne
A few of us are talking about doing a RfC regarding Shorne. Before we can do that we must pass this threshold:

"Before listing any user conduct dispute here, at least two people must try to resolve the same issue by talking with the person on his or her talk page or the talk pages involved in the dispute. The two users must document and certify their efforts when listing the dispute. If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted."

If you feel that any issues exist with respect to his edits, please enter into a dialogue on User talk:Shorne and see how much progress we can make through negotiation. Fred Bauder 18:48, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr.
Everyking, the edits you reverted seemed a little too extensive and careful to be reverted wholesale. At the same time, I realize we can't be cleaning up after such large POV campaigns (?). What I would ask, if you could possibly do it, is maybe go back to that version and give the user a chance to address the problems with their edits. Wholesale reverts, especially of such apparently time-consuming effort, are really rough. Of course, maybe you already left a note of reconciliation with that editor, S. Hope we can gain a new editor out of all this. :-D Tom - Talk 19:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you are right in everything you said. And I say the edits should not have been reverted because Let's give Sarrica (a registered user) the chance to speak for himself/herself and become educated in the ways of NPOV so he/she can fix own edits. My approach may not work in this case, but we always have to give it a try. I don't want the article going to the dogs any more than do you. But a fresh POV at the NPOV table never hurts as long as we are patient and willing to learn and work together. Let's give Sarrica a chance, and let's adjourn to the article talk page :-) . Tom - Talk 20:05, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * "I suppose they contained some good content"
 * they were made by a registered user whom we can try to contact, welcome, and train

p.s. I don't oppose reverting "temporarily" on the assumption the new user is not going to respond to our "Welcome mat". But when such edits are made by someone who has an account, we owe it to the user and the Wikipedia to take the long view, use a little Wikilove, and welcome the user with open arms into a discussion on the talk page. Tom - Talk 20:05, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are right. My apologies. I was hasty. Still unfortunate. But we can't expect each other to always have the time and inclination to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. I do think for such a large anonymous edit, it is nice to put an html comment into the article so the anon can see we value his contribution, but need him to be a little more careful. Don't you think? Tom - Talk 20:09, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. And thanks for your patience with me. Tom - Talk 20:27, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Admin nomination
G'day mate, thanks for your support on my nomination for admin. It's much appreciated :) - Ta bu shi da yu 04:35, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Protection
Could you please protect Rick Crawford as well? Thanks, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:07, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for comments
Thanks for your comments about page movements. I'll keep it in mind. I hope I didn't do any long-term damage.

CSB templates
Why are you removing CSB templates? -- Xed 13:57, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Joan Jett
As I remarked when including her on the CSB list (and no idea what subsequent edits may have done to my comments, haven't looked) Joan Jett is extremely politically active, especially on issues of violence against women (one of the people very affected by the murder of Mia Zapata, but you'd never know it from the article on her. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:11, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Reminder
Please remember to list pages that you protect on Protected page (see the protection policy). Thanks. Angela. 00:29, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

thanks!
see: User:Tuomas &mdash; although the list would be in need of an update

I realize you know the language better than me and must be right with regard to "X fought Y", although it makes a strange impresson on me. I associate to X being the aggressor, unfortunately. Foreign languages are tricky! I've long pondered to express a clear and formal thank to you. Now seems to be a good time for that. Thank you! /Tuomas 16:36, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your question on MOSSADEQ /"Rhethorically"
Everyking, Mossadegh asked for full powers RHETHORICALLY because he new darn well the Shah would refuse to grant him this (for the Shah suicidal) request. Mossadegh, the fox, was looking for a reason to submit a mock resignation, in anticipation of the masses rallying him and keeping him in power, or in case of an accepted resignation restore him to power, as prime minister ! I leave it to your judgement, to reinsert the word "rhethorically".

World War I revision
Hi, I noticed that you are a frequent editor of World War I. I have just made a proposal for a major restructuring of the article in its Talk page, Talk:World War I, and would appreciate your comments.

User:PhilipIsPDR

Old Swiss Confederacy
Thanks for your support vote on FAC. You wrote: "I was a little hesitant to work on a few areas, though, where I wasn't entirely sure of the meaning." These areas obviously need improving. What were they? Lupo 07:47, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for updating all the Congress bios. I'm trying to do the same. :) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 23:07, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Re Ken Salazar: Sorry for my accidential revert there; my computers wacky. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 02:03, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

grand theftendo problem?
Just curious, what was your problem with grand theftendo? I thought it was an interesting footnote. I'm not sure what you mean by "prominence" though... maybe my one-liner should go somewhere else? --I. Neschek 01:25, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Whoops, I see it now. That's actually a better place for it, thanks much! --I. Neschek 01:26, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, no, I'm not the creator. I just think it looks pretty keen and was worth a note. --I. Neschek 01:28, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Monotheism
You said "whatever, but the wording is ridiculous considering islam is a monotheistic religion as well". Mind your knowledge, my friend, we're talking of a religion (Tangraism) that is (was) older than Islam and Christianity. So monotheistic there was no devil, nothing but Tangra, good an evil all in one.

The fact it's not in Encyclopaedia Britannica doesn't mean it's made up.

Take care, Kroum

Re: Anthony DiPierro
Hello. Perhaps you haven't read this. ''1. The arbitration committee instructs Anthony to refrain from playing around and making provocative edits on VfD and associated pages. The arbitration committee does not object to which way Anthony voted, only the manner in which he voted'' -- from Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro. And perhaps you haven't been reading WP:VFU lately. I'd like to know what a "provocative edit" might be, if it's not what Anthony DiPierro has been doing lately. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:17, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User page
Thanks for that. I had listed it at Speedy deletions (as I always do), but people seem to pay little attention there. I think it was just after I specifically said I wouldn't create a user page during my nomination that I realised I could've just put some old nonsense up, got the adminship and deleted it straight after. Oh well, I guess that would have been a bit dishonest, so I wouldn't have done it anyway, but the irony was not lost on me. Thanks again. - 22:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) Lee  (talk)

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
Thanks for correcting my grammar and spelling mistakes in the Enemies section. I'm Swedish, so I don't always see when some word isn't right. /John

Forum for Encyclopedic Standards
I have drafted a proposal for a new voluntary association on Wikipedia (joining groups like the The Business and Economics Forum and the Harmonious editing club) to promote discussion of a sort of system of expert review on Wiki. Please take a look and add your ideas. 172 03:29, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agreed with Adam Carr about the use of Nazi Germany being like using "Republican America" but if you don't like it i won't do it. as for the dash - it just looked too close together with the dates so i separated it out - again if you don't like it i won't do it. PMA 00:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ruben vs. CLay
In all honesty, NEITHER of them are really THAT big of a hit; Kelly Clarkson, either. The articles require NPOV. Just because you're heard many people say something doesn't necessarily mean their opinion has a place in an encyclopedia article on either Ruben or CLay. IF you want ot emphasize the fact that Ruben sold less than CLay, find SoundScan numbers for both singers' albums and do it that way...because right now, you're going on more-or-less ungrounded hearsay. --b. Touch 13:20, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Blocking yourself
I've unblocked you. Blocking yourself is generally frowned apon, if your ISP uses a cache proxy, you'll block others as well. Even if it's not the case for you, it sets a bad example. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 19:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You sound stressed! Have a wikihug from me :-) What do you mean by "punishes people who try to prevent vandalism"? Who's being punished and how? Also don't worry about watching everything for vandalism. If you take a break, nothing bad will happen, someone else will get them. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 20:56, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * replied on my talk page. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 21:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey! It's Hilary!
I saw you add a message on my user page, and I just thought I'd stop by here, and leave you a message! I gotta go right now, I hope you visit my user page again soon! --*Hil* 22:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--JGal2004 04:09, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hilary left, and I blamed the admin. Hilary wasn't as pressured with you though, so, sorry! Didn't mean you, just everyone else who pestered her. And snowspinner was a big part of it, but not the only one she felt uncomfortable with.

"Commonly known as"
Is it really necessary to include that phrase in the text? I believe that the title of an article is presumed to be the most common name by which someone is referred. MisfitToys 00:51, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Contest
You shouldn't have changed your name! It was a good one. You should've worn it like a badge of pride. You know, I don't mind a troll, but every time I hear about souls I get all jittery. Everyking 06:51, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to have to go to the runner up, am I? :D  ClockworkSoul 06:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My adminship request
Thanks for the support! --jpgordon{gab} 04:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that mistake in East Germany - didnt mean to make it PMA 12:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Me
I have had arbitration requested against me by only one person, ever, and that was Lir. As for Hilary Duff, the amount of trouble that could arise from a celebrity impersonator on Wikipedia is just too much. We would open ourselves to legal harassment through an implied claim that Duff vouched for our HD article, and, in the (frankly unlikely) event that Hilary Duff did attempt to use Wikipedia, it would be a major discouragement for a legitimate user.

I will also point out that User:Hilary Duff's claim that she has nobody working for her is absurd. I will point out that the person who claimed that this was clearly really her because they'd read one of her secret blogs and the information was verified there was absurd. I will also point out that, shortly after arrival, she mysteriously gravitated towards User:Mike Garcia, and that this is exactly the sort of stunt one would have expected from Michael.

I will also note Fred Bauder's October 30 block of User:Tran Van Ba as the precedent I used in pursuing this matter.

If you really think that my conduct in politely asking someone who was almost certainly a troll to take a trivial measure to verify her identity and thus protect Wikipedia from the possibility of a legal backlash was unreasonable, feel free to start an arbitration case against me. Snowspinner 22:55, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

I too believe that Snowspinner is a rogue sysop who should be desysoped. Please join me in my arbitration case against him. Lirath Q. Pynnor

The above is the reason I disendorsed you. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 15:53, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

If you are interested in orthogonal's criticisms of me, feel free to read up on them. Requests for arbitration/Orthogonal is a nice starting place. His objection stemmed from my requesting arbitration against Avala. Notably, the arbitration committee just concluded that arbitration with the kind of slap on the wrist that I had requested when I submitted the case. Starting from this, orthogonal began a crusade against me that culminated in him comparing me to the Gestapo. Snowspinner 16:29, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Zury Rios
Thanks for catching my whoops about Rios-Montt's presidency. I figured it out in five minutes or so and was going back to fix it when I saw you beat me to it. -Dhartung 04:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

reverting the Romania during Ceausescu
Everyking, please see the discussion section for the article Communist Romania and consider replying the points I underlined, before you revert back -- Criztu 21:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ArbCom
I've thought it over and now agree with what you've said. Given that we all make errors, I don't think my actions were justified. I was unfair to you. I've retracted my disendorsement and hope we can put this behind us. Humbly…[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:57, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * And put that barnstar back on your userpage ;) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:58, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Celebrity usernames
I've raised the general issue of celebrity usernames at Wikipedia talk:Username. I'd be interested in your comments. JamesMLane 20:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zeroes
Of course it is the zeroes. At $485,000, he would be overpaid. Thanks. Rlquall 01:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
I've "started" the Free the Rambot Articles Project which aims to get users to release all of their contributions to the U.S. state, county, and city articles under the CC-by-sa 1.0 and 2.0 license (at minimum) or into the public domain if they prefer. A secondary goal is to get those users to release ALL of their edits for ALL articles. I've personally chosen to multi-license all of the rambot and Ram-Man contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License so that other projects, such as WikiTravel, can use our articles. I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all your contributions (or at minimum those on the geographic articles) so that we can keep most of the articles available under the multi-license. Many users use the   template (or even    for public domain) on their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I understand, but I thought I'd at least ask, just in case, since the number of your edits is in the top 50 most. If you do want to do it, simply just copy and paste one of the above two templates into your user page and it will allow us to track those users who have done it. For example:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain (which many people do or don't like to do, see Multi-licensing), you could replace   with    -- Ram-Man 15:34, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Let's see. Dumb it down.  Ok, Wikipedia uses the GFDL as its copyleft license.  The Creative Commons Licenses are other copyleft licenses that are free like the GPL but don't require you to have pages of legal text with every copy you make, a simple link to the license is good enough.  The CC-by-sa is very similar to the GFDL in most other respects.  Some projects other than Wikipedia use the CC licenses which can't be mixed with the GFDL.  So we can't collaborate and share information.  Dual-licensing says that "Hey, I want everyone to use my stuff!".  To this extent users sometimes release their copyright and put their edits into the public domain.  This, however, allows anyone to take the edit and relicense it under ANY license, which some people don't like, but many people do.  Anyway, I was asking if you would agree to multi-license your edits.  This means that someone can take your edits and CHOOSE to use one or both of the licenses.  Does that help you out?  Or did you have some other questions?  Copying and pasting the text of Option #1 and saving it in your user page would tell us all that you want to do this. -- Ram-Man 21:10, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup
Deleting articles from the Cleanup page will get you blocked from editing. RickK 08:57, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Is week by week data relevant 5 years from now? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site. --Hemanshu 10:22, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, because that's not a compromise. The sales data is remaining there, I took special pains to make sure that it was.

And my disendorsement was hardly petty. You've gone against the expressed will and desires of 3 other users and have violated the 3rr- which as of tomorrow will be a bannable offense. Your fanboyism seems to know no bounds. So the only thing I have left to say to you is "honk honk, here comes the banmobile!" Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 10:54, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Use of rollback for keeping "your version" of an article is an abuse of adminship powers. Removing from the article is vandalism. --Hemanshu 11:20, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let me make it clear that I appreciate some of the work you have done on the article. But I do not appreciate your insistence on keeping the excessive text that is of no significance in the article. --Hemanshu 11:39, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nothing if you stop vandalizing. If you insist on persisting, you could be blocked from editing. --Hemanshu 11:50, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I listed the article at cleanup because I think there is good content there, but it needs to be cleaned up. At the first read, I immediatly got the impression that the article was written by a fan, and that the text didn't flow as well as it could because too much detail and too many quotes of more or less relavancy were included in the narative. You seem to resist the editing of the article by others, reverting the article atleast 6 times in the last two hours. This is not constructive. If others choose to edit an article, it is because they want to make the article better, either by adding more detail, or by making the existing detail easier to find or understand. We're all here to build a better encyclopedia, and sometimes a better encyclopedia is built by tightening up content so that it is presented in a clearer, more consise manner. The best content in the world is of no value to anyone if the reader never finds it because it is surrounded by too much fluff. Gentgeen 12:42, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing on Wikipedia for 24 hours for vandalizing Autobiography (album) Please note that you do not own Wikipedia articles. You were warned about this. --Hemanshu 15:30, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Without stepping into the dispute you're having with Hemanshu (Beyond my support in principle for blocking misbehaving admins), I would remind you that there are no Wikipedia articles that are "yours." Snowspinner 19:16, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)