User talk:4wajzkd02/archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Black Harry (T|C) 17:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thank you very much for the kind welcome. I've been reading Wikipedia as an unregistered user for a couple of years. At first I was a bit of an 'Encyclopedia snob'; over time, I've come to appreciate Wikipedia as a useful and enjoyable resource. I've been lurking as a registered user for a little bit, and after trying my hand at some small edits, felt it was time to contribute a bit more.

I very much appreciate the references you provided. I'll read them as a first step in my education here. I'll also continue to look at existing pages for inspiration and example. Your user page is certainly impressive to me - I'll be sure to use it, and other such pages, as inspiration when I update mine in the future.

Edits at Barack Obama
Hello 4wajzkd02. Please note the result ofthe 3RR complaint that you submitted. Since an RfC is now in process (thanks to you) any further reverts of the disputed item, in either direction, may not be warmly received by administrators. EdJohnston (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand, and sincerely thank you for the comment. I did assume as much, so stayed hands off once I opened the RFC. Cheers,--4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, you have already been asked - Fix the link you cited int he Relevancy section at Talk:Barack Obama/Relevancy to reflect the edit in question, instead of another talk page edit. You've made tracking down what your'e actually complaining about nearly impossible without guessing based on the edit histories. ThuranX (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've "already been asked" - what? Where? Apologies, but the above note doesn't seem to ask that. I mean to comply and be helpful- what have I done wrong? Thanks! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I should be the one apologizing, I should probably have been a little more civil in my editing rather than just making sweeping statements. Your input in political articles is as valued as anyones, don't let everyone get under your skin. :)Soxwon (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the kind comments! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Fascism in the political spectrum
The RfC on Fascism has now run one month and there are now two versions of the intro para:


 * Most scholars do not find the terms right and left very useful with regard to fascism, which incorporated elements of both left and right, rejected the main currents of leftist and rightist politics, and attracted adherents from both ends of the political spectrum. Hence, fascism can be called sui generis. Some scholars do place fascism squarely on the right or left.


 * Most academics describe fascism as extreme right, radical right, far right or ultra right; some calling it a mixture of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing nationalism. However, there exists a dissenting view that fascism represents radical centrism. Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left.

Could you please comment at Talk:Fascism.

The Four Deuces (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Following this RfC, there is currently a proposal regarding the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to characterise fascism as "right-wing".


 * Even if you don't have much to say, it would be useful if you could let your view be known in order to guide the discussion towards some sort of conclusion.


 * Please take a look: here.


 * Thank you. --FormerIP (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Civility poll
Did you mean to delete most of your text, leave it unsigned and mark as minor? --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I did not. I am unsure how the 2nd edit ended up the way it was - I received a timeout message when I saved after previewing (the preview looked fine). Since then, every time I've tried to edit or undo that change http://en.wikipedia.org/ has timed out. I'm hopeful whatever the issue (latency?) is resolved and I can now undo the minor change (which really was, as I saw it in preview, just a minor typo fix - I had missed a closing parentheses). Thanks for the note! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm stumped. Using two different browsers, when I try to edit my comments, the Preview looks fine, but the final result deletes a lot of text. Here's what I was trying to say:


 * 31. A review of edit summaries and discussion pages of some (unfortunately, mostly high-profile) articles shows a profound degree of incivility. It seems that a small group of editors take advantage of the anonymity afforded here to be purposefully unpleasant. A further review of these editors' talk pages and contribution history shows sometimes a wealth of contributions, but always a history of misbehavior - yet contributions seem, time and again, to be used to justify only limited blocks of these individuals. Moreover, on some items of great contention (e.g., the controversy in Fascism about "left vs. right") some editors seem to spend too much time pushing individual points of view while "rearranging the deck chairs" of a sinking article (read it sometime, then compare to a mainstream encyclopedia - the Wiki version is too long, over-referenced, and more confusing than illuminating). I believe that editors who demonstrate incivility anywhere on Wiki should be quickly warned, then blocked, then (with some reasonable escalation process) eventually permanently blocked. The rate of recidivism amongst some uncivil editors is simply too great. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've pasted it in for you - you might try signing it yourself and removing my . Kind regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I'm still troubleshooting the problem, so don't want to edit and have data deleted again. It appears there's a proxy in between my browser and the web that was not there in the past, and that proxy times out when sending relatively large amount of data. When I have the issue resolved, I'll do as you recommend. Thanks again! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have finally corrected the problem. I don't see the need to go back and update the entry in the poll, however - it seems fine as is.--4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
That was vandalism? Oy vey.201.124.83.161 (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Gosh, that was a flagrant error on my part (I'm not sure how I made the mistake, but I absolutely did). Thanks for the kind note (particularly under the circumstances). I removed the warning section from your IP address' talk page. Welcome, again, to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Cheers,--4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing you mixed me up with another IP. No worries, and thanks for being such a mensch about it.201.124.83.161 (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Kindest regards, --4wajzkd02 17:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Signatures
Good day mate! I would just like to let you know that on the talk pages of several new users that you welcomed, you forgot to add your signature. I'm just informing you of this because new users often ask the individual who welcomed them for advice, and if the signature of the person who welcomed them is missing, they may be unsure of who to speak to. I feel that you should probably go back and add your signature to these talk pages. Anyways, happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I left off my signature purposefully, as it is embedded in the template in a link. I've seen at least one case of a new user complaining about being welcomed with a signature, calling the signature "advertising". Additionally, I think I'm not violating any policy regarding signing talk page entries, as the template used explicitly includes a link to my user pages:


 * "If you need help, ... ask me on my talk page,"


 * Thanks for the note. I'll think more on this topic. If you have any more thoughts on this topic, please do post them here. Cheers,--4wajzkd02 (talk)

This user misapplies Wikipedia rules to attack other users
This user attempted to falsely categorize arguments against another user's behavior as "personal attacks".
 * Apologies, but:


 * 1) My filing of a WP:ANI report was wholly within guidelines, and,
 * 2) Unlike this, neither my doing so nor my warnings on your talk page in any way meet the definition of an attack. Something to remember is to comment on the content, not the editor.
 * I refer you to some tips on such things. Consider reading Civility, in particular. Regards, --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Incorrect
You mean don't stop somebody from obviously censoring comments on a talk page that they don't like? Yeah, I'll be sure not to do that.

By the way, regarding your "rule" about not replying on your talk page: don't stick comments on MY talk page and then have the audacity to tell me not to put one on YOUR talk page. That's just rude, though of course it's typical of wikipedia. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 98.112.55.128 (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies if the text on my talk page implies a "rule" about replying. I'll refactor that text later to clarify that there's no need to do so, as I'll notice a reply on your talk page. That concept of keeping discussion threads in one place is commonplace and meant to reduce clutter (for example, should I place my reply on your talk page, or here, or both, or just here and leave a note there pointing here - well, perhaps you see the point). Regardless, you're welcome to reply here.
 * As to leaving comments on someone's talk page in general, read WP:Don't restore removed comments. Anyone is welcome to delete notes on their talk pages anytime, with or without replying. The referenced document notes that by deleting, the user is implicitly acknowledging they're received the message. In addition, there's not supposed to be any shame or bad feeling associated with having a note on your talk page - templates (such as the one I used) are just supposed to be handy shortcuts to providing guidance to new editors (which, from the list of contributions from that IP, it seemed you are). You may want to sign up for an account, but not doing so is also your choice.
 * Regarding your comment at the top of this section, "You mean don't stop somebody from obviously censoring comments on a talk page that they don't like? Yeah, I'll be sure not to do that.", I refer you to the third box from the top of that article's talk page:"This is not a forum for general discussion of 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Any such messages will be deleted or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article."
 * Regarding "That's just rude, though of course it's typical of wikipedia.", please WP:AGF. The discussion thread you reopened was not about improving the article, but instead was general discussion, which is inappropriate (see WP:NOTAFORUM). My warning you on that point was appropriate, though you may notbe listening. If I can clarify, I'm glad to do so.
 * Finally, you recent re-introduction of your edit isedit warring, which is also inappropriate. Please stop. (I'll leave a note on your talk page regarding that, and point you back here).
 * --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Protostan 3RR
You might take a look at User talk:Protostan again. I think you meant the warning to relate to Barack Obama rather than Pepsi. QueenofBattle (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I corrected my error. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

On the Obama page
Thank you for the welcome message. I have actually been around here for a while, but I make a point not to make a user account, as I see the necessity of such as being contradictory to Wikipedia's original intentions. That being said, I did indeed provide provisions to clean up the article; we need to get rid of loaded terms. Thus, my post was more than appropriate. 67.60.50.5 (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Thank you for the welcome message". You are welcome.
 * "I make a point not to make a user account". That's your choice.
 * "I did indeed provide provisions to clean up the article". Pardon, but with one exception, I did not see specifics:
 * "Regardless of what the FAQ might claim, there is absolutely no way this article is without bias; any reasonable reader could come to such a conclusion". No suggestion for improvement.
 * "The entire article is peppered with partial language". No suggestion for improvement.
 * "Rising star?" Really?". No suggestion for improvement, although one might charitably infer you mean to delete this phrase - even though it is (per other editors in the discussion thread) included verbatim from a WP:RS. But is this what you mean, as you did not say so? Being quite fair to all involved, your lack of precision and your broad, negative introductory comments don't engender confidence that your intention is to improve the article (which is pretty common with high profile articles such as the one in question).
 * "We need to all stop being so defensive over this, regardless of where we fall politically, and strive to make it an article that really represents Wikipedia, not the selfish ambitions of certain members of Wikipedia." No suggestion for improvement. You did attack other (unspecified) editors ("selfish ambitions of certain members of Wikipedia"), and did not assume good faith ("We need to all stop being so defensive over this, regardless of where we fall politically").
 * "I have actually been around here for a while". Then it is reasonable to assume that you know that your approach to introducing improvements to the article, demonstrated here, could be improved, as in at least two instances (WP:AGF and WP:NPA) is contrary to best practice, and could be construed as beingdisruptive editing. For an article on probation, in particular, I recommend you reconsider your approach. I also suggest that further discussion regarding your 'suggestions', such as they are, be continued on the talk page. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Hatnoting
Please be so kind as to go back and revert your hatnoting of discussions involving Grundle. It is totally inappropriate to hide all of these discussions retroactively. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "hatnoting of discussions involving Grundle". A careful review will show that the discussions hatnoted are those that were initiated by the editor in question, as well as being consistent with the behavior leading to his indefinite topic ban (If I got one (or more, G-d forbid) wrong, please let me know, and I'll correct).
 * "It is totally inappropriate". I don't think so. But I'm not trying to be WP:POINTy, and I try to be a stickler for policy. I'm hatnoting (hiding, not deleting) to remove clutter - of which there is an enormous amount. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. Don't take my response as presumptive; I'm happy to read if you'd like to explain your point of view. Regards, --4wajzkd02 (talk)
 * I think it's very bad form. I didn't see anything inappropriate in the comments I looked at after seeing some of them pop up on my watchlist. They were posted in good faith by a major content contributor. Some of them had been responded to, and I don't see any reason they needed sought out and collapsed. Obviously Grundle will not be able to participate in those discussions for the time being, but collasping them the way you did looks to me like an unnecessary provocation and an act of disrespect towards someone who is already censored from further involvement in those article discussions. Given Grundle's many article creations and his substantial content contributions to Wikipedia's articles about political subjects, the damage resulting from his being banned is bad enough. That you've gone ahead and proactively hidden his past comments is wrong (that's the mildest word I can come up for it). I hope you'll reconsider. Given your politics and point of view it seems you have cause to celebrate already without sticking your fingers in his eyes. Personally, I think our NPOV core policy and the best interests of the encyclopedia and our readers are greatly undermined by banning an editor who doesn't share the majority perspective as far as content and article interests are concerned. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "an unnecessary provocation and an act of disrespect","sticking your fingers in his eyes". It is not intended that way - pardon, but it seems you're looking for conflict here.
 * "cause to celebrate". I am saddened that the action was necessary. I tried to help the editor in question - but I came to the conclusion that his (to quote another editor) "Doe-eyed naif act" was indeed just an act - no one could possibly be that resistant to simple understanding. I suspect he wanted to be banned (and his subsequent 'celebration' of that banning via posts to various off-wiki web sites is consistent with that suspicion). Sadly for him, he seemed to lack the patience to work within the system (or, cynically, to more subtly push non-NPOV views into the knowledge base, as at least one person off-wiki has proudly proclaimed success in doing).
 * "someone who is already censored from further involvement in those article discussions", "greatly undermined by banning an editor who doesn't share the majority perspective as far as content and article interests are concerned". I recognize this is your core issue. There was clear community consensus on this issue, and your point of view as to the rationale of the action is not reflected in the record of what was discussed, nor in the record of the editor's misbehavior. As I recall, only you and an IP editor offered a contrary view (and I'm afraid neither of you offered effective rationale for not taking the action proposed).
 * "wrong (that's the mildest word I can come up for it)". If you feel your statements on the issue of the community action, or your comments here, are "mild", please spare me your less 'mild' commentary.
 * "Given your politics". Your statements have been rather unfriendly (to put it mildly) from the beginning of your insertion on my talk page on this topic; this last comment is per se without good faith. To my recollection (and I would be greatly surprised if my edit history would clearly and without interpretation show otherwise), I have never espoused any political opinion whatsoever, and my comments with respect to the editor in question have had everything to do with his inability to adhere to policy, and his apparent inability to change. Other than those two comments, I do not feel it appropriate to comment (let alone debate in a hostile atmosphere) more on this point - you're welcome to read my views on the recent action as I have posted them. As for my "politics", I feel it is "wrong" for you to assume that my (or any other editors') actions are predicated on bad faith. Shame on you. To paraphrase you, "I hope you'll reconsider" your comments.--4wajzkd02 (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Re
Agreed. If you run crying to freerepublic, and tell everybody there to tell Matt Drudge, you never had any good intentions and were only here to make a point. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, as were others, but he's taken our good will and spat it back at us, trying to get some right-wing glory. I don't get it.  Grsz 11  04:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Because you and other POV pushers have been able to censor him Wikipedia you think he shouldn't be able to post on his experiences elsewhere? What nonsense. The bully tactics employed by you and 4waj might work here, but you can't stop people from complaining about your behavior elsewhere.ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "you and other POV pushers", "censor", "bully tactics ". I reiterate my request that you be WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF when editing my talk page. If you cannot do so, please do not edit this page again. Thank you, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

hi!
any particular reason why you placed a template on my page? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just documenting, per (I forget the WP:acronym). But, per an often-referenced essay, you're welcome to revert the addition, for whatever reason - it will be in the History of your Talk page, pour l'encouragement des autres. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * cool. bcs, there already is a default WHOIS template on bottom of every IP's talk paga. cheers. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a gift for you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Hollstein has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with{{subst:munch}}!

if you don't mind, come to my page: Hollstein (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

French Prisoners of War at Agincourt
Bonjour, That was an interesting addition you made toPrisoner of War. When you get a chance, would you please add a reference for the addition? I didn't want to clutter up the article with a fact tag. Merci beaucoup, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * Thanks for showing interest. I've added a reference. Teofilo talk  14:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Great reference! Thanks again! --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Camp Friendship
I think I understand why you left a notice concerning the PROD of this article, but I'm fine with it because I think that article probably should be deleted anyway (my only contribution to it was stopping people from vandalizing it) but I'm not sure what the intent of the message you left on my talk page under the heading "Warnings" is about. Rnb (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply. Regarding the WP:PROD warning, I saw you had edited it, so I wanted to be thorough in my notification. As for the Warnings header, I'm sorry, I thought it was the right thing to precede any warning of any sort (including WP:PROD. I'll go delete it from your page (and of course, you can always delete anything you like from your talk page). I'll rethink the addition of that header in the future. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk)
 * Ah, that makes sense. Thanks.  I think the edit summary that mentions WP:COI was what confused me, as I'm used to associating that with people who shouldn't be editing articles involving themselves.  Thanks again. Rnb (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I didn't notice my error in the edit summary. My browser (Safari) helpfully fills in forms. I meant to have it say WP:PROD warning, but it picked up my prior entry (for a different user) of WP:COI and I didn't notice. Rats!

I have another gift for you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 Hollstein has given you some wikipets! Wikipets help promote companionship between users. Hopefully these ones have made you happy!!

HI, it's me again (the one that gave you the cookie(Hollstein)) and I decided to give you some wikipets! ps: I hope you like cats :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) Hollstein (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, someone out there actually exists!
Hello. I am Hollstein's older brother. I noticed earlier that you are one of few people who respond to comments, so I thought I would say hi.CitizenofEarth (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)  CitizenofEarth has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with{{subst:munch}}!

 CitizenofEarth has given you another cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day twice as better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with{{subst:munch}}!

 CitizenofEarth has given you a third cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day three times as better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with{{subst:munch}}!



CitizenofEarth has given you a wikipet! Wikipets help promote companionship between users, and hopefully this one has made you happy.

Created by CitizenofEarth

My brain challenges
Hi, it's me again (Hollstein) I just wanted to tell you (If you didn't see it on my user page) that if you get the answer right for my brain challenges, you get a barn-star. Hollstein (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've taken a quick look at them. Later this evening, when I have some free time, I'll try to solve one. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Martin Kantor
Did you look at the material I removed? It is quite bizarre, and I'm far from the only editor to think so. Material of this sort needs to be excluded from Wikipedia if Wikipedia has any editorial standards at all. Would you rather I quoted some other policy, like WP:FRINGE? Nor do I understand why you think he's notable. Does publishing a bunch of books make someone notable? -- BenRG(talk) 15:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * BenRG, I apologize for the delay in responding. First, a caveat - I do not profess to be an expert in this field, I'm merely an uninvolved editor who's done some vandalism reversion to the article in question. My knowledge of Psychology is limited to 5 undergraduate classes (Intro., Abnormal, Psych of Learning, Experimental I, and Advanced Independent Study) as part of my BA in another field. That having been said, let me try to address your comments:
 * "Did you look at the material I removed?" - Yes, and don't find that it shocks the conscience or is otherwise bizarre.
 * "It is quite bizarre, and I'm far from the only editor to think so." - That's good, really. I didn't notice a consensus on this topic on the talk page, but I'll go back and look. If there is, good. If not, then an article content RFC should get consensus. I was concerned as it seemed there was a content dispute with a limited number of participants (principally you and User:Penbat.
 * "Material of this sort needs to be excluded from Wikipedia if Wikipedia has any editorial standards at all." - I don't see why, but would like to understand your point of view. Initially, I thought the concern was that the Doctor in question was not notable. A review of that policy, and a Google Scholar and Google Books search, shows me that he is himself notable (as an aside, I think WP:NOTE is a bit of a red herring here, as the article is not about Kantor, but is quoting his work). As to the reliability] of his work, again referring to the policy, his work is published by mainstream press, and I did not find other [[WP:RS that described his work as WP:FRINGE (this doesn't mean that such works exist, but in a brief search I didn't find them).
 * "Nor do I understand why you think he's notable. Does publishing a bunch of books make someone notable?" As to the latter, not necessarily, particularly if they were self-published. Again, I think WP:Note[ is a red herring, as the issue is using Dr. Kantor's works as a reliable source.
 * Here's some paths to consider to resolve the content dispute amicably:
 * Get a clear consensus that Kantor's work is not reliable. This would involve presenting evidence (not opinions) with reliable sources disputing the validity of his work at a content RFC. As one expert dismissing the work of others is not unusual in academia, we'd have to be careful to find impeccable sources.
 * In the interim, or failing to have consensus on the un reliability of Kantor's work as sources, find other reliable sources that contradict the points made and update the text to reflect the various sides to the argument. This is an area in which I can help improve the article, given someone provides acceptable sources with clear indication of alternate views.
 * --4wajzkd02 (talk)


 * Dont you ever give up BenBG ? Apart from publishing 14 books in his field, he has vast clinical expertise and credibility and trained many other psychiatrists. I would put him up in the second tier guru level, second only to the likes of Hare, Cleckley and Millon, who incidentally he frequently cites. It is difficult to see how he could  be any more notable than he is. Which books of his have you ever looked at anyway ? --Penbat (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Penbat, I have to agree, as I noted to BenRG, that Dr. Kantor seems to pass the notability test without question. His works seem to pass the Reliable Source tests as well. Perhaps BenRG can provide some other reliable sources that dispute Kantor's work, or that describe his views as fringe? I couldn't find them, but this doesn't mean such (particularly the former, but I'd be surprised by the latter) don't exist. However, as I said, just having two reliable sources dispute each other doesn't mean they're viewpoints should be excluded - as long as we do not put anundue emphasis on the materiel. --4wajzkd02 (talk)
 * Thanks. Does your ruling permit me in the meantime to restore all the Kantor material to the psychopath article and can I assume that you would intervene and restore it again if someone else attempts to delete it ? Obviously I would have to accept the verdict of any separate review process that is carried out.--Penbat (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, to clarify, I'm not issuing any ruling, I'm just trying to avoid an edit war. WP:BRD says that it is OK to Boldly make a change, then someone canRevert, then the parties Discuss to gain consensus for the final version. In this case, I'm not sure what the status is regarding consensus.--4wajzkd02 (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4wajzkd02, I'm amazed that you think a statement that "downloading copyrighted material from BitTorrent enables psychopaths" is appropriate for Wikipedia's article on psychopathy. Ultimately I don't think it matters, as a half dozen other editors are now involved and none of them supports the inclusion of this material. I never edit war; I follow a personal 2RR, and that usually means two reverts in the history of Wikipedia, not per day. Of course I now regret reverting even twice in this case as it seems to have created the impression of an edit war. For that matter I regret getting involved in this mess at all. Incidentally, Penbat described my edits as vandalism when reverting them; I hope you agree that that was inappropriate. -- BenRG (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem BenRG, is your lack of understanding of what psychopathy is. I have said several times that to understand the background context, you need to read the book and it looks like i am the only person who has done so. To decide that the entire literary output of an eminent psychiatrist is unworthy of Wikipedia because you dont like the sound of some of my highly condensed paraphrasing of small parts of one of his books, is just appalling. You blanked out references to Kantor's other books in other Wiki articles. By condemning Kantor you are condemning the top psychopath gurus in the world - Millon, Cleckley and Hare to whom Kantor closely aligns himself. Without these gurus, the modern concept of psychopathy wouldnt exist.--Penbat (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The only possible issue is down to the limitations of paraphrasing where inevitably some of the meaning in the original uncondensed text will be lost. I was going to try to refine my paraphrasing anyway. To properly understand my paraphrased text and pick up relevant background contextual information, it is necessary to read the book. It would be nice if somebody else would buy the book and try paraphrasing it a bit better. --Penbat (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The theory behind the book is heavily underpinned by the work of the top psychopath gurus (Hare, Cleckley, Millon etc). In the book, the work of these gurus and others are frequently cited by Kantor. For example, Kantor's "psychopaths of everyday life" is very much underpinned by Cleckley's "mild psychopath" and Hare's "subcriminal psychopath" - other gurus also expound the same concept. The same concept is also well supported elsewhere within the Wikipedia psychopath article itself with the explanation of the primary/secondary psychopath distinction, the PCL-R checklist and the psychopath/sociopath distinction. Far from being "fringe", Kantor is very much in the mainstream. Check this link out http://www.helium.com/items/1503467-is-narcissism-normal The link supports my point that Kantor's views are closely aligned with Hare's and Cleckley's and Kantor is considered worthy enough to be mentioned alongside them.--Penbat (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Help?
Hey, I am trying to perfect my "wikipet" creation. I want it to be like the cookie, where you type and it pops up. Do you have any ideas? Thanks.CitizenofEarth (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'll look at it. --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Me (again)
hey,you said you have 4 big dogs at home? Well I have one that I wouldn't trade for the world! could you use another wikipet? Hollstein (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Beautiful picture, thank you! We have 3 Golden Retrievers (2 males 7 & 2, 1 female 5) and 1 English Pointer (female, age unknown but 8+). I rescued the Pointer from a mountain road, the day after Christmas 2007. Someone abandoned her in sub-freezing weather (she appeared to have been used to breed a number of litters, and had other physical problems). The Goldens we got as puppies locally. --4wajzkd02 (talk)

User talk:194.80.32.8
Hi, You've just added a load of contact email addresses to User talk:194.80.32.8.
 * For some values of "load" (at University, we used the term "load" to signify "an extreme an unreasonable amount", as in "I consumed a load of beer last night, so overslept". Perhaps it is just the result of 30 years of inflation - a load just isn't what it used to be).

Whilst the ja.net abuse addresses are relevant for JANET security incidents, using them to report wikipedia vandalism is OTT and rather a waste of the time of the JANET CSIRT guys.
 * Addition of the upstream (ja.net) is OTT? See below as to the source of my update.

I know the chance of ticking them off is pretty close to zero, since the lancaster address has received no messages from WP admins in the last 24 months, and it's no disrespect to WP, but we know that they really do have more important stuff to do. Steveb (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No disrespect to you, either.
 * I was referencing the Abuse.net entry for that domain. That entry is based on thethis. Should the lancs.ac.uk entry be changed (if so, I'll submit an update), or should it stay as is and only the mailto tag for the whois template be revised? From your comments, I infer:


 * Leave the abuse.net entry as is, and
 * Change the mailto tag in the whois template to User talk:194.80.32.8 to be only abuse@lancs.ac.uk (update: I'll go make this change now).
 * Let me know your preference, please. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, just to clarify, you could change the template yourself, if you wanted. I'm happy to change it... but would like to know if you think the abuse.net should be updated, too. If there is anything else I can do, please let me know. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just abuse@lancs.ac.uk in User talk:194.80.32.8 is perfect. I'm trying to make sure that this stuff gets dealt with (though this seems to be totally unexpected by all the WP admins I've encountered so far), so IMO putting upstream abuse addresses is OTT unless someone's going to start doing the same to report vandalism originating from all the non-cooperative sites to their upstream providers. I'm well aware that I can edit the template too, but I don't want to get into some sort of editing battle. Steveb (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply. I meant to be reassuring in my comment about you editing the template - I'm trying to help, not hinder, and try really, really hard not to edit war. It is clear that you want to manage troublesome editors at your institution.
 * Regarding upstream notifications, barring an insider's view of how abuse reporting is handled, many people use references such as the one I mentioned as the source of contacts (some large, automated reporting systems rely on those same sources). I know that for my corporate domains, I registered our preferred address (support@) but have abuse@ aliased to that address. For an organizational domain I manage, we're required to have the upstream abuse@ listed in our whois info. along with ours.
 * Regarding your desire to manage reports, see my comment on your talk page about RSS.
 * Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

!!! Warning !!! ;)
It just occurred to me that wikipets could die. You never know what you will be doing at the time. You could be playing a video game, or eating breakfast, or even reading this comment, and suddenly you will know that one of yours has died. However, you don't have too much to worry about: it hardly ever happens. On the rare occasion that one of yours dies, just ask me for another. I have an infinite supply. CitizenofEarth (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
hello thanks for the welconeNamenatra (talk) —Precedingundated comment added 16:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC).


 * It was my pleasure! Best regards, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sigfried Line Edit.
Hello,

First let me take this opportunity to thank you for your time and interest in my edit, and your kind offer of assistance in my participation in Wikipedia.

I changed the phrase "Man Years" to "Man Hours"

I may be misinterpreting some aspect of the article, but I believe my edit is accurate.

The Context of the edit was in reference to the amount of time required to construct a single concrete bunker...

As it now reads it means that it took the people constructing a bunker 20 years to do so. —Precedingunsigned comment added by Rampant unicorn (talk • contribs) 19:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the nice note. I'll go take another look. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa. I misread the section, somehow missing that the line referred to each bunker, as opposed to a series of bunkers. I reverted my change, and removed the note from your IP's talk page. Thanks again for the nice note, and I hope you enjoy editing here at Wikipedia. Best regards, --4wajzkd02(talk) 21:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

HI
Hi! me again, can I make a friend here? Hollstein I love Pizza! 20:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You have! What I can I do to help you, here at WikiPedia? What articles strike your interest? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * sorry I couldn't answer you very fast. some other user got blocked from editing Wikipedia because of vandalism and his computer has the same IP address asCitizenofEarth and my own. So that is why I couldn't respond. but anyway, the only thing that I've noticed that i thought was cool is that Wikipedia has a page for even colors! and not to mention I love to play guitar (and I'm quite good if i don't say so myself) so i enjoy reading on electric guitars and rock music. --Hollstein I love Pizza! 10:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries about the reply. I'm glad you like Wikipedia. If you haven't already, you should try making even small improvements to the articles you like to read. For example, reading through articles on guitars or music, I'm sure you'll find a error (even small) of some sort, of a section that could be added to. Try it!
 * As an important aside, I'd encourage you work at getting your autoblock removed, rather than using a a different IP address to edit. That could be considered sockpuppetry, and could get your IP blocked. Just explain the situation with complete honesty (see WP:My little brother did it). Best regards, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks, I'll try, but I might need a little help. CitizenofEarth tried talking to JpGordon -an administrator- but some how JpGordon thought that CitizenofEarth was a sock puppet of Hawner;g but I know that he isn't because CitizenofEarth is my brother. I love Pizza! 15:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you still there?I love Pizza! 11:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

My Address, My Post
My address was shared via DHCP. Sorry you couldn't figure out/believe that. My post was in regard to the artical/smear. Thanks for your censorship and threats, though! 206.124.6.222 (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding your concerns:
 * I did not remove your forum-like comments from the talk page in question - another editor did, and rightly so. Removing unproductive talk page comments is not censorship - talk pages are for discussion of how to improve an article - please align your comments in that regard in the future. I noticed and provided you with a note describing why, in case you did not realize the purpose of talk pages.
 * Host names are host names - yes, you can disconnect your DSL router and reconnect and (probably, depending upon provider) get a new host name -but the IP in question, from the perspective of Wikipedia is not shared - unlike those of educational institutions or web gateways/proxies. If you don't want your IP information associated with your posts, sign up for a free account.
 * I made no threat - I did provide fair notice of the Wikipedia policies which led to your posts being reverted.
 * I remind you to be WP:CIVIL - not only are your comments not assuming good faith, this edit in which you state "People are talking out of their butts." is also lacking in civility. I recommend you read the welcome message I posted to learn more about interacting with others at the community project which is Wikipedia. As previously noted, I also recommend readingWP:NOTAFORUM and WP:3RR.
 * As I am uncertain if you will read this note, I will post a pointer to it on your talk page. As always, anyone on Wikipedia may remove comments from their talk page (with some restrictions, such as block messages, but these don't apply to you now, and, with some care on your part, won't). Regards,--4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unproductive is your POV, and/or some other censor's. Redefining censorship in an Orwellian way doesn't make it go away.  I'm okay, you're soso.
 * I don't really know what "host names" has to do with it. I care about the truth. The truth is the address is in fact shared, regardless of what your redefinition of it is.  A couple weeks ago, I did not have this IP address.  Next week, I could have an entirely different IP address.  I don't control this sharing.  That's why there was already a history before my comments.  Imagine that!
 * What you posted on the user page for this address is clearly a threat. I'm sorry you're unable to face the reality simply because it's part of a template.
 * I'm not sure I understand your last note.206.124.6.222 (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "I'm not sure I understand your last note." If you mean this ("anyone on Wikipedia may remove comments from their talk page"), I'm pointing out that since you seem to be expressing displeasure with the warnings posted on your talk page, you're free to delete them at your leisure - but the referenced policy means you accept the warnings and will (presumably) change your editing behavior accordingly.
 * As for your other comments, you might enjoy reading this essay: User:Alexf/Tips
 * As always, happy editing. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, and for the clarification you posted on my IP talk page. You can see my (toned down) response there.  Cheers.206.124.6.222 (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!
I am a student at Boston Latin School and a countributive writer for the school newspaper "The Argo". In the last hour, I had made several examples of vandalism to three individual articles as an experiment for an upcoming report on the reliability of Wikipedia as a schoolwork source. I am satisfied to see all three edits of vandalism were revert in less than 4 minutes. I apologize for any confusion, and thank you for serving as an example of Wikipedia's excellent dependability! Jake Z. (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks for the note. Regards, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Saturn
Per the edit summary in your response to Bugs, you may have missed this post of mine. It doesn't have the actual diffs, but does link to the archived discussions. Steve Smith (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Having reviewed my sources on the topic of Obama and religion I have concluded that at this point the information I have does not meet my criteria for categorizing Obama as a Protestant though as you said he should remain categorized as a member of the UCC. --Protostan (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note. Best regards, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Smile
You're right; I was using Huggle and there must have been some net lag when I clicked :( Thanks for being watchful!--  fetch  comms  ☛ 01:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries - I've done the same. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Jerkin' article
I'm still muddling over what happened. There was a serial vandal - 3 edits in a row - I hit the rollback button, and it not only rolled back his edits, it then proceeded to roll back MY rollback edit. Something glitched somewhere.

Thanks for the cleanup help. Appreciate it. Regards. --Manway (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * ADD: Is there a way to delete that one edit I made? I hate having anything to do with VANDALISM attached to my name - and I did it! It's the second 1:07 entry. Thanks for any help you can give on that. --Manway (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I hear you - but I don't think so. I'll look around and see - and I certainly can see it was a rollback glitch. I've seen similar myself.--4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

YOU ARE THE CHOSEN ONE
hi 4wajzkd02! i just created a page not 5 minuets ago. i was going all over on a bunch of user pages ,and i chose you to ask - can you help me get started?The voice of mud (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, how can I help? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked at your contributions, and (unless something was speedy deleted), it looks like the only pages you've created so far is your user and talk pages. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * well, those links are bound to help me. i'll tell you if i need any more help. thanks a lot!--The voice of mud (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I do have a question for you
hey, i've been thinking over the past few days about things to put on my user page but i cant think of any thing, so i was wondering if you could give me some suggestions. thanks!--The voice of mud (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, what do you want your User page to reflect? Some people like to look at various Userboxes and define themselves that way. I used to say more, then decided to say less. You could also put an essay there describing yourself, or what you want to accomplish here. What're your thoughts? --4wajzkd02(talk) 03:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks for the help! you gave me an idea that led to another and another.
 * i also have another question. i saw your discussion with 'user:Hollstein' where you wrote that editing from another IP address could be considered sockpuppetisem. what is a sockpuppet?--The voice of mud (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Read WP:SOCK for the details, but the bare bones summary is that a WP:SOCKPUPPET uses multiple wiki accounts (or IPs) abusively:
 * Having multiple named accounts (i.e., where you log in) is OK but held in some suspicion by many editors, and is supposed to have limitations (e.g., no using multiple accounts to vote, or build consensus on talk pages, or avoid blocks, or use one for bad behavior and another for good).
 * Not logging in and editing without an account is definitely OK, and sometimes recommended (e.g., using a public terminal). But, you shouldn't pretend to be someone else when using an IP to edit, or do other things mentioned by parenthetical example, above.
 * Innocent folks can get caught up in a block situation. For example, if two people in a family edit WP from home, and (for example), one gets blocked, the other could be "autoblocked", and assumed to be a WP:SOCKPUPPET. Read WP:BROTHER as an explanation of why it is east to assume that "my brother did it" is not true.
 * I have seen evidence that past WP:SOCKPUPPETRY can be ignored. Editors have had "bad behavior" in the past, quietly come back and contributed, and no one has complained. However, misbehavior from ex-WP:SOCKPUPPET can increase the bad feelings, let alone sanctions for actionable behavior.
 * I wouldn't worry about it. Everyone deserves another chance, just like everyone here should at least behave, and better would productively improve the articles.
 * Regards, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok,thanks!--The voice of mud (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?
You reported User:Quahog10 for vandalism, after leaving two warnings on their talk page. The consensus on the vandalism board was that their edits did NOT constitute vandalism, and I agree; I have removed the warning templates from their talk page. While their edits were not necessarily helpful, sure, they did NOT constitute vandalism, which is defined as intentional bad faith edits meant to damage the encyclopedia. I would urge you to be more careful before you call something vandalism, to not bite the newbies by templating so heavily, and to exercise restraint before you report someone who at the most is guilty of clumsy editing. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not alone in my warnings (there were a total of 4, and his edits were indistinguishable by me, and apparently one other editor, from routine rapid-fire vandalism), nor in my conclusion that they were intentionally unhelpful; nor did I CSD his page (which some editor, perhaps you, complained about on the editor's page). Given a string of edits, 4 warnings, and a CSD - it seemed approprite. The use of templates specifically we designed to not WP:BITE, so I object to your use of that term here - kindly WP:AGF:assume good faith and don't WP:BITE the old-timers, either. I would urge you to take a more friendlytone the next time you see fit to lecture someone working hard, in obscurity, to improve the encyclopedia. No thanks to you. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, well, thank you! The first two warnings were as unwarranted as yours. I'm not trying to bite you at all, I'm just telling you that you are wrong. Simple as that. Mind you, the editors at the vandalism board agreed with me. Next time, do not shoot from the hip--and why should I lecture you nicely when you erroneously November accuse a new user of level 4 vandalism and try to get them blocked? Drmies (talk) 02:14, 17 2009 (UTC)
 * I just saw how you reverted my warnings on the users talk page, then the other editor restored theirs, and you agreed they were unconstructive. You seem to be contradicting yourself, and I find your behavior incorrect - and unbalanced. Why are my warnings removed, and the other editor's not? Did you look at the edits? "Vegetable" substituting for "seed", and adding "hotel" to "House" are not "accidents" nor attempts to improve. They're clearly subtle vandalism.
 * I reiterate, if you can't be WP:CIVIL, don't edit my talk page. I stand by my actions - and, at most, someone from WP:AIV could have decided no block was needed. Your gail of bad faith is unwarranted.
 * What's really going on here? Have I offended someone you are friends with and this is your response? I fail to see why your unbalanced actions are warranted. Please back off. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My friends? What are you talking about? Please read carefully: I agreed that the edits were non-constructive, not that they were acts of vandalism. If you think that's the same thing, you should really read WP:VANDAL: vandalism is "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." There is no way that you can conclude from the user's clumsy edits that they were deliberately attempting to do that, and in fact their edits suggest they were trying to be helpful, even if unsuccessfully (subtle vandalism? come on--not in this case). Now, my gail (?) of bad faith is fine, thanks, and there were two editors at AIV before me who thought your report was over the top: look it up in the history, where you'll find that someone at AIV did decide that no block was needed:User:NuclearWarfare, a certified administrator, according to this edit. Whatever you wish to yell at me, you need to yell at them as well. As for those warnings, I removed them all; the other editor restored his. Again, look it up in the history. But don't worry, I'm done hanging out on your talkpage. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

funny
i said that the obama article shouldn't have much about h1n1 or call him stupid. You then wrote that you didn't agree. you mean you want to call him stupid! probably misread, i assume. happy editing Fuwiwebssti (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I must have misunderstood. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Quahog affair again, I'm afraid
Hi 4wajzkd02. I just made this edit to Quahog10's talk page before realising that you and Drmies have discussed the issue at length elsewhere and agreed to bury the hatchet. If I'd known that I would have kept quiet; please don't take my effort as any attempt to go digging it up again! Best, Olaf Davis (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note; I won't even look. If you haven't already, perhaps you could just delete or revert your comment. No reason to put such on that editor's talk page. Your choice - Ta. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On the whole I think I'll leave it up 'for the record' and to avoid confusing the new user with disappearing comments; as you say it's high time we all left his talk page alone. The comment wasn't really inflammatory at all (IMHO) anyway so I don't suppose he'll mind either way. Happy editing, Olaf Davis (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Let me know if you don't need the Tb template each time. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Printing Money addition to Federal Reserve System
Thanks for the heads up - left a comment there and will continue to monitor. It's pretty clear that the IP has a agenda to illuminate us all with The Truth. Ravensfire (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I know nothing about the issue, but saw the pushing by the IPs, and the WP:3RR. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've now read up a little on the issue, and it seems this is a controversy resolved long ago (see Legal Tender Cases). It does not seem to be amainstream position to espouse this as a current controversy. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup - seems those get ignored by the IP. I've just reverted him myself.  It's probably about time for a 3RR report if this goes much longer.  If nothing else, I'll file one tomorrow.  Ravensfire (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not sure what else to do. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Filed a 3RR report hereRavensfire (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope it is acted upon. --22:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have again attempted to add the disputed material - the expanded version in the "Criticism of the Fed" and not the short version on the main Fed page and you again reverted that material. I have for the second time asked that editors place "reference needed" to any portion of the expanded version that they don't like and I will attempt to supply backup. Some of that backup will probably be from the "Legal Tender Cases" themselves citing Supreme Court language. Supreme Court rulings are acceptable wiki sources. You will notice that the section where my additional material is added is titled "LEGALITY" and starts of with the statement that some think the Fed in unconstitutional. If you checked you would have noticed that I had already replaced the angelfire link with a link to the same text at the Yale Law School Avalon Project in response to criticism. Please revert that material and add a "cite needed" flag to any portion which you feel uncertain about. As you said above I know nothing about the issue, and it seems to me that CIVILITY requires one who knows nothing to ask for backup before rejecting something as original.

Also: I have responded to your concerns on the backup I used for the short version of the material on the main Fed page. Please review my responses, and if my response does not satisfy you please respond with a "clear" complaint.96.237.134.44 (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To be clear - you lack WP:CONSENSUS to make the changes you did, and in the process are edit warring. My concern is the process you are following in contravention of policy, not the content. Good luck, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You took one of my coments out of contest - see below
Your complaint cut and pasted below with my response

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that youassume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Criticism of the Federal Reserve. Take a look at thewelcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Your comment appears to assume bad faith on the editors who are trying to help you : Bringing in supposedly independent outsider who work for you is pretty low on the moral scale - "Thou shalt not bear false witness" made it into the 10 Commandments. Also please remember to sign your posts, like this: "4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)". The edit(s) in question are as follows: --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop your harassment - Above that comment you cited is a link to a newspaper article - please read that article for context - I was not slamming a wiki editor- I slamming the federal reserve for bringing in economists to deceive Congress during a recent "audit the Fed" vote. Those economists represented themselves as outsiders when 7 of 8 were current or former Fed employees. It would not surprise me in the least to learn that the 8th also had Fed ties. Newspaper link for clarity http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/18/economists-opposing-fed-a_n_362287.html96.237.134.44 (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replied on your talk page. Good luck, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Your harassment continues - see below for your next attack and my response after the your fist one was shown to be bogus


 * Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Criticism of the Federal Reserve for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Your have explained that your comment, "Bringing in supposedly independent outsider who work for you is pretty low on the moral scale - "Thou shalt not bear false witness" made it into the 10 Commandments", was "slamming the federal reserve for bringing in economists to deceive Congress". Pardon for misunderstanding but perhaps you'll understand even more why it is important to not use the Talk pages of Wikipedia as a forum - they are for improving articles only. Regardding your charge of harrassment, I and several other editors are trying to help you understand how things work at WP. The only way we have, in addition to welcoming you and providing links to the five pillars of Wikipedia, is to point out where you are not following the guidelines. Good luck. The edit(s) in question are as follows: [13] --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I was contemplating adding this attempt to deceive Congress about the impact of the "Audit the Fed" Bill introduced by Congressman Ron Paul, in the article "Criticism of the Fed" and wanted to see what other wiki editors thought about it. If believe that an attempt (likely one of many) to deceive Congress is at least worth thinking about for inclusion in that article. Please comment with your thoughts on this issue in that discussion page. 96.237.134.44 (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by96.237.134.44 (talk)
 * I replied on your talk page already, thank you. There's no need to post the same message in both places - I'll notice if you reply just on your talk page - but its OK, too (just a little time consuming). I think it is great that you're looking to get discussion of the Ron Paul bill on the talk page, and ultimately get added to the article. I think it is a good topic to discuss with editors who know the topic, given the large amount of press on the bill. Disclaimer: I lack domain knowledge in this area, so other, more frequent editors of that article may have different ideas. For example, is there a better article to which this belongs better? Or is it already mentioned? I'm not sure about either. Regards, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Persistent, isn't our IP?
I've left a fairly long post on his original (? Second original?) IP talk page that will hopefully point them towards the right path. We'll see what happens. Meantime I'm going to try to answer at least some new questions. Ravensfire (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He seems to be looking for any article whatsoever in which he can add his point of view without notice, let alone WP:CONSENSUS. Sadly, his claims of 'harassment' demonstrate a continued misunderstanding of WP policies, and lack good faith. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I fear the next step will be that his additions to articles will begin shortly, with the justification that "no one commented on the talk page" or "the talk page comments were non-specific". This will be followed by more reverts, followed by more walls of text on talk pages, followed by more calls of harassment, followed by another block, repeat. I am reminded of this case, which ultimately ended up likethis. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you call it when someone who himself admits "I know nothing about the subject" goes around and deletes well sourced ad historically accurate material as Original Research and Synthesis? I call it harassment!71.174.142.108 (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You'd be wrong, on several levels. I've explained before. One more time:
 * My comment about "not knowing the subject" referred, as I've said multiple times, that I am not a regular editor of those topics, but noticed youredit warring and stepped in to help you understand how things work. That's called an "uninvolved editor", the point being that I don't have apoint of view on the topic, rather am looking at things from a policy perspective.
 * I stand by the correctness of any reverts I have made as being justified by policy. I also support the reverts made by other editors. If you continue your approach, I would not be surprised if more editors review your contributions, and revert them if they again fail to meet policy. I have given you detailed reasons for why reverts are justified despite an addition having sources (see one of your talk pages), and I have provided a detailed analysis of one of your addition's sources as to why most failed to meet the requirements.
 * I have also repeatedly explained what original research and synthesis are, yet you persist to claim that your WP:OR isn't such since you didn't author the text (and other statements that sadly suggest you haven't read the various policies provided to you, but rather skimmed them looking to further justify your additions against WP:CONSENSUS, e.g., your claims of WP:OWN against others).
 * Your current campaign to find many articles to which you can squeeze in your WP:FRINGE point of view, without WP:CONSENSUS, and todisruptively provide walls of not-relevant text to Talk pages is garnering more, not less, attention to your contributions, with less willingness by more editors to assume you mean well.
 * My advice to you is that you take a break from editing on this single topic for a while, and come back refreshed. I renew my sincere offer to help you, but do wish you'd chill out a bit.
 * Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read this and let me know if you continue to hold to your position of OR and SYN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Federal_Reserve_System#Cites_supporting_my_position_-_showing_it_is_not_OR_or_SYN

After reading please state what opinions ORIGINATE with me and what opinions are SYN71.174.142.108 (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "After reading please" Yes, I do. As an important aside, your wall of text was difficult to read and ill-formatted - please read WP:INDENT and consider following those guidelines when you post to talk pages, in the future. Your tendency to paste lots of text and URLs without following a readable structure is partly responsible for the difficulty in responding to you (not, as you stated, the "constant state of confusion" of wikipedia editors).
 * "please state what opinions ORIGINATE with me and what opinions are SYN" - Your attitude doesn't encourage me to accept your homework assignment. I've previously reviewed in detail your sources and offered helpful advice, but you persisted in claiming that your work was not 'original research' orsynthesis" because you weren't the 100+ year-ago author (and that my opinion didn't count, because I probably couldn't learn anything from a wiki page).
 * Ravensfire also reviewed your work in detail, yet your argumentative response to him was neither on-point nor relevant.
 * Speaking for myself, I am not interested in arguing with you, let alone ad infinitum about the same things, while you intersperse your comments withpersonal attacks. If you continue your course, you'll likely get blocked again (and, for the record, your block was for WP:3RR and WP:DIS, notWP:CIVIL, as you claimed you were baited into - LOL!). Good luck, but fortune favors the prepared. I'd read some other guidelines beyond WP:OWN(such as: WP:INDENT, WP:BRD, WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR, WP:DIS, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:V, WP:FRINGE,WP:OR, WP:SYN and WP:FANATIC) before you begin another cycle of additions/reversions/WP:DRAMA. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right ...
The prediction you made earlier about where our IP might end up is, I fear, going to come true fairly soon. The last few posts have really gone a bit too far. Ugh - sorry you got drug into this, but appreciate the help and support. Ravensfire (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. No worries about being involved - in the end, the difference between a persistent vandal and this collection of IPs is indistinguishable. Shame, really - I have no problem with WP:FRINGE being handled properly (for example, the Moon Landing Hoax is handled with due weight, and without a mention on every page that mentions the moon). --4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While I do live in the Western Hemisphere, we don't celebrate Thanksgiving in England. I'm also about to go to bed (it's now quarter past five in the morning), so I won't be going to the talk page for a long while yet. As for the self-report, I've reported a number of vandals since I installed Twinkle, some for personal attacks. I got upset by his comments and lashed out, as I have a habit of doing. I felt that, once it was over and done with, it would only be right to report myself for the same (I actually reported myself to xeno, as well as PMDrive1061, since xeno is an unofficial mentor). Thanks for the help dealing with the IP. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 05:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. By the by, the holiday on this side of the pond was wonderful - part of the holiday season that build fromHalloween and ends with a thud on the first work-day after New Years. It is a strange system (as hard for some to understand as the month-long vacation of some Europeans is for me to understand), but it seems to work for us. Best regards, and happy editing, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

methadone vs methadrone
Dear editor

i believe it vital that a sub cat or new page should be created for methadrone. as a previous user of it; it appears that this drug is little different from the sub set of methadone thou part of the same family. It appears that this drug is a exstract from methadone but causes a drone effect or a red ball effect that lasts for days but causes simular effects to methadone. eg insomia and paranoia.

at the moment the internet has vast extracts about the drug but not conclusive information. So please may i plea for this to have it own article

ixpnet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ixpnet (talk •contribs) 01:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello. One of the guidelines governing new articles is notability, another is verifiability. Assuming reliable sources can be found that show the notability of methadrone vs. methadone, then I suppose such an article could be written. Do you have ideas for writing one?--4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

ixpnet

i could happly agree: the british website talktofrank.com is strong start on the effects and uses of the drug. inc what it is. the bbc recent added that it becoming a big drug over here and causes (long term) are unknown.

ill see what i can find 4 u.

ixpnet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ixpnet (talk •contribs) 06:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Aren't IP's fun at times?
The Federal Reserve System article gets a fair number of changes like that - they'll find some anti-fed/global financial conspiracy article and go nuts about it. Usually it's once and done, but this IP is persistent. I'm hoping he'll read, and learn some about the overall system, and why he's both right and wrong. I appreciate the help again though! (BTW - the answer is that the individual banks are, in fact, private, but the system overall is not. It's a complicated answer, so it gets mentioned often.)  Ravensfire (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My pleasure.


 * "the answer is that the individual banks are, in fact, private, but the system overall is not" - yes. I believe there's a good, simple explanation of that onTalk:Criticism of the Federal Reserve (ISTR you wrote that explanation). Assuming the IP has more to say, I thought I'd point him there.--4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I might have done it fairly recently, but Famspear's been trying to explain that for quite some time. Personally, I'd rather handle this than jump into some of the nastier fights out there! Ravensfire (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Obama
Hey 4wajzkd02! We must stay neutral between people and Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added byJohnjones5278 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "We must stay neutral" I agree. Procedurally, if you have an issue with any of the articles you just tagged, start a discussion on the talk page(s). However:
 * You should use the correct tag - there are ones for articles, sections, sentences (you used a section tag for a whole article)
 * If your rationale is weak or tendentious, you may not garner support for your position
 * If you simply re-tag, you are likely to have sanctions imposed for WP:3RR or WP:DIS, particularly as those articles are on probation.
 * "between people and Obama" I don't know what you mean by that.
 * Thanks for the response. In the future, please start new sections when you add comments on a new topic to a talk page (e.g., == Obama ==), and do remember to sign your posts. Good luck, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

link
Hi 4wajzkd02!!! If we click on the link, we can know more about New York. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjones5278 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See the warnings on overlinkings, use of edit summaries, article probation,signing your talk page posts, and disruption left on your talk page. Please read the referenced policies and guidelines. If you have any questions, I'd be pleased to answer them. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Question
Why did you mark this guy as a puppet of this this one? I don't honestly care and I'd love to see the former banned for as long as possible, but I'm just curious. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 18:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See Sockpuppet investigations/71.174.142.108 for evidence. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. At the time I asked, there was apparently no page. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 18:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My fault. I posted the notice to the most recent IP's talk page first, then entered the evidence at WP:SPI. You're just too fast!--4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm just never taking the former off my watchlist... see the second question's answer for why. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 19:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Not only does the IP appear to be along-term abuserand IP-hopper to avoid blocks, but he's not very nice and baited you - but that's what trolls do.--4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Some part of me says I really should take him off my watchlist to avoid compounding the issue mentioned in my review, but another says I want to be there to clean up the obvious mess that will result from his eventual block expiry. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 19:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He won't return there. He started trolling WP and pushing his WP:FRINGE views years ago from a dial-up. Now, he has Verizon DSL, and he's learned to simply reset his router (or use its web interface, depending upon his equipment and knowledge) to release his IP and get a new one. He's already done that to avoid his blocks. I'll update the list of IPs at WP:SPI to go as far back as I can. The best way to stop vandals like this is to notify their ISP precisely how they're breaking that ISP's Acceptable Use Policy. I'll look that up and note the URL and clause from Verizon's AUP once I document the IPs.--4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I still want to keep an eye on the page... (insecure about my comments there) -- Thejadefalcon <sup style="color:#03C03C;">Sing your song <sub style="color:#00A550;">The bird's seeds 19:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome
Thanks for the welcome but I have been here since 2002 :) 87.194.208.119 (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. Of course, there was no way for me to know that from your talk page . Best regards, and happy editing! Cheers,--4wajzkd02 (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/OmniWikia
Thanks for your help on the sock-puppet investigation. I think that your additional evidence swayed the admin into a justified block.

Thanks again, Leuko  Talk/Contribs 22:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was pleased to do it. Thanks for the note! Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

False alarm
I saw you reverted two edits to Jonathan Idema, an article which has suffered from quite a lot of vandalism. Nevertheless, after having a look at the content you reverted, and after checking with the sources, I restored the two edits. Debresser (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. I apologize for the false positive. Thanks again, and best regards, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)