User talk:Adambiswanger1/Archive 2

!!!Get Therapy!!!
Adam, I just added a comment under yours at our favorite AfD. I wouldn't post something like that to anyone I didn't trust to have a sense of humor, but I just wanted to drop a note here to claify. I think the article will be saved :) --Doc Tropics 16:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha thanks. I love how he called the periodic table "fancruft".  Does that make any sense to you?  haha wow.  Oh by the way I was just browsing along and I noticed some kid who wrote an article on transliteration into Chinese characters, and I asked him if he could help us.  We'll have to see if he actually does.  AdamBiswanger1 16:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Credibility Crisis
Hi again. There is an essay about WP's credibility issues being written here. I wanted to invite you to review it if you have the time and interest. If you'd care to leave any comments on the Talkpage I'd be very interested in your opinions. I'd especially like to discuss the 'fine line' between improving content and deleting crap; I think we share an interest in that particualr issue :) --Doc Tropics 17:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I knew I could count on you for some rational insight :) --Doc Tropics 19:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the good news: if we can assume 12,000 active and dedicated editors get involved, then we only need to provide refs and citations for 1,000 articles each :) --Doc Tropics 00:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha that's it? It's almost too easy.  Well that brings me to a question:  Do you think Wikipedia should be a place for scholarly research, where references are imperrative, or should it just be a place where you can find out "Who was that Franz Ferdinand guy again?" or "What's the deal with existentialism?"  I personnally don't have a problem with the latter.  I like to just browse around, learning a little bit here and a little bit there, without basing a 75 page dissertation on it. AdamBiswanger1 02:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion at WP:AID
That was an accident. I had no idea it even happened. Maurreen 10:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's ok. : ) 11:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC) no biggie

Proposed deletions
Adam, Someone has posted a proposal to delete the Shakespeare's Sonnets stubs at Articles for deletion/Sonnet 17. You'll want to post in opposition. Thanks, Sam 17:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow that was wild. I thought that the proposed deletion was for all of the sonnets, so I wrote a scathing condemnation of everyone who voted "delete", but then I looked above, and noticed that someone had created articles with no text, and I changed my comment. I'll still vote keep, though.AdamBiswanger1 22:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to get you so riled. But, I think it's great that Sean's now active on it, too, and I've seen a number of the sonnets get some activity.  I really think this project is great.  I've got to chip in more. Sam 00:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: 70.107.78.128
No, the deletion by 70.107.78.128 in the Lambda Phi Epsilon article wasn't accidental, it was vandalism. He replaced all of the links in the article with [meatspin].
 * Here's how it works on wikipedia. If the person has only committed vandalism once, you write { {test1}} on their user page.  You continue as the transgressions prgress until { {test4}}.  So, I did list it as vandalism.  Also, do not insult other users.  What makes Wikipedia great is that users are civil, do not make personal attacks, and maintain maturity despite any offense toward them. AdamBiswanger1 01:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Syracuse
Why did you put Syracuse, United States, in bold? Ciao! --Attilios 06:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, yea I should've bolded the Italian city as well. It's just to make the most likely search candidates stand out.  I think that we should stick with the disambig page, because Syracuse, New York is much larger than Syracuse, Italy, and the University is an enormously likely search candidate, with 18,000 students and countless fans.  What do you think?  AdamBiswanger1 15:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm... I think that, according to WP:MOS, sub-entries in disambig pagse must be bolded only if they have no reference to other articles (it is the same principle used in normal entries). The principle of bolding in order to "make things more visible" must be discarded. As for a comparison between the two... eh eh, now you're touching my pride of Italian. Ok, Syracuse US can be larger and having a frequenting university, but Syracuse Sicily is probably one of the 20 most beautiful and historical cities in the world... (I've never been there, but check the impressive array of monuments I've added in the article to have an idea). And of course Syracuse Sicily is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. If I had really time and will to write the things in full detail, and if this encyclopedia was not so Anglo-Saxon-biased, Syracuse, Italy would have been at least 20 times longer than Syracuse, US. Ciao!! --Attilios 15:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. However, the fact that Syracuse, USA, Syracuse, Italy and Syracuse University are so close in terms of search probability leads us towards a disambig page. (This is exactly what they're for).  I'm not trying to say that Syracuse, USA is in any way superior to Syracuse, Italy, but the first 8 Google hits relate to NY.  Of course by linking to the disambig page we're not preventing anyone from seeing the Italian city.-- AdamBiswanger1 15:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on Articles for deletion/Launceston Christian School
You voted:


 * Keep I'm one of those annoying "high schools have inherent notability" people.

Can you explain to me in as simplest terms as possible what is "inherently notable" about every high school. Because, I have no clue what in the world this opinion is supposed to express. -- Koffieyahoo 09:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC) (I watch your talk page, so you can replay here)
 * Well, in my opinion high schools are of borderline notability. Usually high schools have tens of thousands of graduates, each one spending hours and hours there for a four year period with countless memories during a time of transition in their lives.  Some have more students than say Bryn Mawr College.  Also, to try to delete every article on a high school is an unspeakably futile act.  It just can't happen, and even if they were deleted they'd just pop right back up like weeds. AdamBiswanger1 15:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you answer! -- Koffieyahoo 00:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Jellinek
Adambiswanger1, the article on Jellinek has been altered (at least twice) in a very sinister way by one "Drgitlow" who, from various pieces of evidence (including a dispute that is up for resolution in relation to his unique views on "alcoholism as a disease" -- see User talk:Drgitlow and Requests for mediation) is apparently a serial nuisance in relation to his extremely biased view on alcoholism. His assertion that "The medical, academic, and scientific communities have longstanding consensus as to alcoholism's status as a disease as noted above" is absolutely and completely wrong.

I have taken great care, as you understand, to make the Jellinek article as balanced as possible (NPOV); and I strongly believe that it is not the place to argue whether or not alcoholism is a disease. It is, simply, a place within which the controversial Jellinek's views and opinions are not only objectively described but are firmly placed within their historical context (and, thus, rectifying the common misconception that Jellinek was the first to "pathologize" drinking).

Strong arguments can be made against Jellinek's views, about the level to which the data he presents is reliable and, especially, the extent to which the questionable data he presents actually supports the claims he makes; but that is all opinion -- what is certain is that lots of people believe in certain things, and the reason for that belief is Jellinek's work.

Anyway, I supsect that from this user's history my Jellinek article might be up for a few battles (see the details of his previous irrelevant and misleading edits relating to Rush, "negritude", etc.); and I was wondering if you had any advice or guidance about how I might go about handling this matter (especially because I can not, even for a moment, assume that he is innocently acting from the best of motives) and, maybe, in a proactive, rather than a reactive way. Best to youLindsay658 21:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Lindsay-- Well, I'm really on your side here. Regarding the "alcoholism" article, it seems that "Drgitlow" is unfamiliar with the workings of Wikipedia and does not wish to describe his controversial views as indeed controversial.  In my humble opinion, it works like this: If the answer is not known, one simply explains the rationales and viewpoints of both sides.  How does Gitlow respond to the medical evidence that you have presented?  Is he just ignoring it?
 * And about the Jellinek article, I think you're half right and half wrong. Yes, we should use the article primarily as a place to merely state his opinions and findings, but if further scientific evidence or inclination points away from his conclusions, we should state that briefly with a link to the relevant section in the alcoholism article.  But, as we know, the scientific evidence is rather conflicting.  This is a particularly difficult issue to mediate.  AdamBiswanger1 21:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your guidance. One might suppose, all things being equal, that he/she may be some sort of paid lobbyist (rather than just some unreasonable person with a bee in his/her bonnet) and that is why he is so consistently intruding into so many places with his time-exhausting issues. I have made a response to his intrusion; and I have done the best I could to be as polite as I possibly could; however, the degree to which one can be reasonable is always contingent upon the degree to which one's "interlocutor" is, in turn, reasonable. I do hope that something can be done about this person -- I am too busy to have my time taken up with all this nonsense (as, I suppose, you are too) and, if what I feel is valuable work for Wiki, is going to to be contributed at this price, perhaps I need to turn my efforts elsewhere. Anyway, thanks for listening. BestLindsay658 06:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This seems as good a place as any to respond to the messages about me that have been posted in various places. I assure you I am a single individual and that I am not a paid lobbyist. I focused my attention since January on the alcoholism article, occasionally looking and editing other related areas. Much of my work is as an educator in the field of substance use disorders. I also work in the policy development field as a volunteer and spend a good deal of time treating patients with alcoholism. In years past, I developed and ran the Addiction & Recovery Forum on America Online, so I've got pretty extensive online community experience as well. I have no specific goal for any of my editing here other than a personal one to make certain that readers understand the medical perspective regarding a medical condition. If you discovered a friend suffered from diabetes, you might want to learn the latest medical perspectives regarding diabetes and might come here to learn what that was. You'd probably want a statement indicating what other perspectives there are, but you'd want to make sure that the most time was spent with the latest and best that medical science has to offer. It may be narcissistic of me to feel that the medical community has more to offer regarding disease states than the patient community, but if you look at most patient-driven sites, they usually represent an anecdotal series of discussions that don't necessarily lead the readers to the right place. You're all correct that alcoholism being a disease is disputed, but it really isn't among those in the medical profession. Entire textbooks in the field don't have a single page discussing any such dispute. As one of my patients said yesterday, "The dispute is in the heads of those who don't want to think they have a disease." I appreciate the final choice as to the material we were discussing in the Jellinek article; deleting information that wasn't directly relevant is indeed a viable option. But all I was trying to do, in truth, was indicate that the medical community has already established consensus on the whole disease issue, and that while other interest groups remain unconvinced, this may not have the level of importance that it would if it were the scientific field and community that appeared uncertain. Best wishes, Drgitlow 13:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment Dr. Gitlow. I have no objection to the premise of your argument, however I have one strong objection.  As per the information presented by Medical Man, it seems that the medical community has not reached a unanimous consensus on the issue.  Now there may be a strong tendency among experts to lean toward your veiwpoint, but we have demonstrated sufficient uncertainty on the part of medical experts to warrant a fair delineation of both viewpoints, and to claim that there is no controversy among medical experts, and to minimize either point of view would be a deception to the reader.  While I respect the AMA and consider it one of the more authoritative sources for medical information, it is far from the be-all and end-all of debates such as this.  Perhaps in a few years, when the tide of the medical community consensus changes, we can alter the article accordingly.  But for now, we'll have to simply write about the question, and not the answer.  Regards, AdamBiswanger1 14:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Adam. Medical Man has indeed presented a great deal of evidence. Part of the problem here, at least from my perspective, is that there are standard sources in the medical community (MD/DO) to use as reference: peer-reviewed journals, fully reviewed textbooks, policy statements from accredited medical organizations, and so forth down the line until you get to opinions and anecdotal evidence from individuals. You won't find anything arguing the point of alcoholism as a disease in the peer-reviewed medical literature or in other reliable sources. You absolutely will find such argument in non-medical sources, non-peer-reviewed websites expressing personal opinion, and from the lay public. There's no question that the battle goes on in those places. In the medical world, however, the entire field is referred to as the addictive disease field; there are departments of addictive disease at various hospitals. It just isn't an issue at all. Statements in some of the materials here on Wiki have said things like, "There is enormous controversy as to alcoholism being a disease." That's a misleading statement because it might lead the reader to think that DOCTORS aren't certain, or are still arguing that point, and that hasn't been the case for decades. I've been trying to push for a neutral perspective. I have nothing at all against anyone saying that there is controversy among the laypublic, or by several individuals who are well-spoken in the field (but who aren't physicians, like Stanton Peele).


 * If I said that "high fructose corn syrup is thought by many to potentially lead to diabetes," or "high fructose corn syrup is thought by many leading endocrinologists to potentially lead to diabetes," or "high fructose corn syrup is thought to lead to diabetes by some well-spoken individuals, but not by the leaders in the field of endocrinology," all those statements would tell you different things. The cold facts in this case are that leaders in the field of addiction have absolutely no controversy regarding whether alcoholism is a disease, BUT there are others who continue to disagree and who have received wide circulation of their opinions. What medical man has brought to light is that there are quite a few people who don't believe that alcoholism is a disease, but these are not individuals who are board certified addiction medicine specialists, and therefore medical man has yet to indicate that there is controversy among the expert medical community in the field. The closest he has come is in one article that was written by a board certified addiction expert who indicated that controversy remains about the topic. I agree. Controversy remains. But not in the medical field. And I've yet to see any reference indicate otherwise. Drgitlow 23:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thanks


natura naturans / natura naturata
Natura naturans is not a term coined by Spinoza. It was already in current use in the medieval Scholastic. The distinction between creative nature and created nature (natura naturans and natura naturata), for example, is already stated in those terms by Averroes (Comm. ad De coelo I, 1). (v. article in the Rudolph Eisler Wörterbuch der Philosophischen Begriffe,http://www.textlog.de/4748.html).
 * Well, it sounds like you know more about natura naturans and natura naturata to me, so feel free to change it however you like (Be Bold). I had thought that someone like St. Augustine or some other Christian father used it originally, but the research I did led me always to Spinoza, including a venerable dictionary of philosophy which said "See: Baruch Spinoza". AdamBiswanger1 00:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Disambig
I carefully reviewed the entire history of that page, then did some Google research before forming an opinion and making a comment. Since you share these practices it's not surprising that our comments are on the same side of the issue :) On a seperate note, I did some similar research on Drgitlow after I noticed Lindsay658's comments about his activities. In addition to being unclear about how consensus works on WP (he seems to feel that the only opinion which matters is his), it really seems like he his POV-pushing with some kind of ulterior motive. I'm not clear yet on what his motives might be, but I don't think his activities are contributing to this project in any positive way. Drop me a note if I can help; it's always a pleasure to work with rational people :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 15:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what I should make of this guy. He's really pushing this "Alcoholism as a disease" viewpoint, and he has good sources to back it up.  He claims to be an eminent physician, and Google brings up a several pages relating to him.  Half of me wants to back down to the expert and recognize that Truth is not found by consensus, and the other half of me wants to recognize that popular sentiment is that this issue is unresolved.  But in the end I have feeling that Gitlow (If he is indeed Gitlow) is just flat out wrong about there being a definite consensus.  Check out the Alcoholism page.  Medical Man added an absurd amount of sources to counter Gitlow.  It's pretty hilarious AdamBiswanger1 15:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You know that I stand by the phrase "Truth is not a function of consensus" and I too respect expertise in a field. However, this seems to be one of the problematic cases where an 'expert' refuses to allow for any opinion other than their own, despite a huge amount of controversy on the topic. And that's why this bugged me a bit; there is a lot of controversy on this topic despite the AMA's apparent solidarity. I think it's worth remembering that there have been circumstances in the past wherein the AMA's 'unanimous' statements turned out to be unanimously wrong. just one example: remember when Homosexuality was classified as a disease? While I doubt Dr G is a lobbyist of some kind, he really does seem to have an axe to grind. BTW - I had read through the controversy on the Alcoholism page...poor Medical Man seems to have got his panties in a bundle over this one :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 15:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha--after he de-wedgifies I think I'll give him a barnstar...especially since we direly need sources on WP. AdamBiswanger1 16:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no question that the guy really works hard! I think he was up to about 17 cites at one point. You're right, if everyone put that much effort into their articles, nothing would ever need to be deleted :) I actually dropped a note on the Alcoholism Talkpage earlier. If I get torn to pieces there I'll follow my standard procedure and blame everything on you.
 * And that would be my cue to start using my 2 favorite tools: big words and arrogance AdamBiswanger1 22:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This refers to my problem with his intrusion into Jellinek yesterday:
 * Talk:E. Morton Jellinek
 * FYI. Best you you bothLindsay658 22:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow that was good. You tore him up while still being civil, and I can't for one minute imagine him, if he is who he claims to be, replying without first defending himself.  Hopefully you'll have shed some light on his closed-mindedness and he'll be more self-conscious when editing. AdamBiswanger1 22:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Adam- Thanks for your contribution to the Alcoholism page.Medical Man 16:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Poetry Portal formatting
Thanks for the message ... only just read it now. To me it looks ok ... maybe Sam's changes fixed things. If you still see a problem let me know more details (and maybe which browser you are using). Stumps 20:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Syracuse
Siricusa on Google.it gives ~9M hits Syracuse on Google.it gives ~67M hits. The first 40 of which are almost exclusively Syracuse NY. Syracuse, NY on Google.it gives ~30M hits Siracusa, Italia on Google.com gives about 4M hits.

As far as I can see Syracuse wins in every far match up.


 * I just dropped a comment on the Talkpage there, but I don't think logic stands a chance in the face of nationalistic passions. While the specific topic of these two cities is not of huge significance, there is a more important underlying issue of organization within WP. I'll be keeping an eye on this topic, and I wouldn't be surprised if the question gets taken to a more formal level like RfC. It's ironic to me that the comments generated by a straightforward disambig resulted in enough text to create a couple of full articles if the time had been used more productively :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

SU
There's a site, http://su.ratemyclass.com (edit: oops, it's gone!) that is pretty helpful for professors. It was insanely popular when it came out in 2004, but since then has calmed down a bit. As you'll surely learn quick, CFS 388, Human Sexuality is everyone's favorite, as it's hilarious, insanely easy (just go to the weekly class, which is like stand-up comedy anyway). The classes that suck the worst are anything that has to do with the writing department, but there's no way around that requirement.

Bathrooms... Eggers (part of the Maxwell complex): 5th floor... Single stall, unisex, no one uses it. HBC (writing and humanities classes): 3rd floor... The only one that isn't the size of a closet in that building, plus there are less classrooms up there. The officially best-voted bathroom was in the Tolley Administration Building, but that building is closed for renovation. Basically, the best rule is usually highest floor in an academic building, because there are less classrooms and offices... Usually only a dean's office or something.

As for other advice... Drop class(es) if you have any doubts the first week. Better than getting stuck with hell and a bad grade. As for general life, the Daily Orange is usually full of that stuff the first week or two. -newkai | talk | contribs 20:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and if you have any political science requirement(s), take PSC 124 (Int'l Human Rights) with Prof. Schmitz. He's German, and probably the best professor I ever had. -newkai | talk | contribs 20:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't believe how many people have told me they have visited Salzburg but not Vienna. I mean Salzburg is a very nice city, but it's like visiting New York State and visiting Syracuse but not New York City! Hahah, OK, not the best comparison! I guess people just visit Salzburg because they're skiing or in Munich, which is close by. But you should definitely check out Vienna sometime. It's beautiful and alive! Enjoy 'Cuse. -newkai | talk | contribs 20:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Naming
The naming convention for this page should be Anaheim Hills, California. Anaheim Hills, California is the most commonly referenced name for the area. I was reading through the naming conventions, and have found no justifications for the statements about the community, city, state convention that had to be used. The only rule that I found was that the name had to be precise, and the most common form of the name. Following the "black and white" rules of WIkipedia, the most commonly used name, and the most precise name is Anaheim Hills, California. Using Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California is not the most common or the most precise name for the article, breaking the main naming rules of Wikipedia. As I said, the statements above about the community, city, state convention has no evidence to back it up, and is the assumed desire of particular users, and in no way the typical naming convention. Some users do not want to accept the fact that they were wrong, and have taken their actions regarding the naming convention too far. I think it is time that we put this silly issue behind us, and just move it to Anaheim Hills, California where it belongs. That is what the Wikipedia rules state, and that is where the page needs to rest. The Wikipedia rules, like keeping the name precise and at a commonly used level has worked very well...if the rules havent been manipulated by the users and admins who insist that it MUST remain at Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California. Just move it to Anaheim Hills, California, follow the Wikipedia Guidelines, admit all your wrong doings (for every user on this page has a wrong doing in one form or another) and lets just try to handle this in a civil way. --69.232.62.33 08:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well as you said the most important consideration is the name most commonly used. The problem is that in everyday conversation, people say "Anaheim hills" without any reference to california or anaheim, and If they do call it "Anaheim Hills, California", then it is still a mistake, and for us to tailor article names to errors in speach would be for us to change Nuclear to Nukulur.  Anaheim Hills, California gives too much of an impression that it is an independent city, and to me that's the primary consideration.  Thanks for your interest, though. AdamBiswanger1 13:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Qualities
Adam, it is obvious that you are an arrogant intellectual elitist. I'm sure you have other fine qualities too, those are just my favorites :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 15:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Nikki Carlisle
Just an FYI. You forgot a "{" in the wikifying with your RfD at Nikki Carlisle. I added it, and everything is fixed now. Flibbert 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks alot...Prods bother me. AdamBiswanger1 22:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

St Mark's - Groton rivalry
I'm sorry, but it's a well known fact that Groton and SM are admissions rivals, and as SM alums such as me are loath to admit, Groton almost always wins. This is undeniable, as is Groton's higher level of social prestige. Your name looks familiar. If you are an SM alum editing out unfavorable characterizations of your alma mater, I would have to question your impartiality. Far from "veering into the realm of admissions office literature," I am being candid. I love SM but let's be honest, eh? Interview any disinterested independent school consultant and s/he will tell you the same thing. - Terry Cowgill
 * Pardon my rudeness, but what are you talking about? I think you're looking for someone else. AdamBiswanger1 02:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Planets AfD
LOL... you voted 1 minute after I posted it. Did you have the opportunity to review the awful junk you're proposing we retain inside the list? This, for example? - Crazy Rouge ian talk/email 14:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yea, I figured most of it was junk, and the rest we could summarize in a sentence or two at List of Power Rangers planets. I've learned the hard way that you can't win the war on cruft, so you just have to contain it to one article.
 * As Uncyclopedia says, "[Wikipedia is] a database including such things as of trains, Mortal Kombat characters, one-time villains from Mario games, road intersections, boring suburban schools, garage bands, cats, dead flounders, webcomics, Bionicle characters, kittens' headquarterwebforums, characters from English soap operas, Mortal Kombat characters that don't exist, and a thing they call articles." AdamBiswanger1 14:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course you can win the war on cruft. Just look at the successful mass AfD's of C&C crap by Proto - he's on #7 already, and he got his way every time. Or look at my successful mass AfD of "Surfing breaks in X" articles ten or so days ago. - Crazy Rouge ian talk/email 14:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * True, true. I'm sure not averse to deleting cruft.  Just take a look at my contributions.  However those examples seem to be egregious violations of notability guidelines, and I would consider this a borderline case given the popularity of Power Rangers and what seems like mild prominence of the planets within the series.  In any event, I think we are on the same page, in that we both do not wish to nominate List of Power Rangers planets. AdamBiswanger1 14:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"Paris gap"
Just one question - was the "enormous gap" you spoke of there when the picture was up top? Also, what browsers "make" the gap? IE, I presume?

That was two questions, wasn't it? Anyhow, thanks and take care,

T HE P ROMENADER 16:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's put the photo back up top as it was before - this seems to work for everyone. In the meantime we can have a look at the infobox clearing problem... this has been quite a bug in the past. Thanks!  T HE P ROMENADER  17:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I do like conforming to fact but I'm not much of a conformist when it comes to style : ) I think it has to do with the "order of things" because of the "clear:right" on the infobox and photos... this may take some playing. The most important of all this is that it shoud work! If you have the time to experiment, by all means please go ahead.  T HE P ROMENADER  18:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I do like it how you put it - I hope it looks good in IE too, that's what's important (no error ugliness!). I do tend to strive for what works best before looking at what other people do - a good way to keep one's imagination alive and noggin wheels spinnin' while making occasion to find things better : ) Cheers.  T HE P ROMENADER  21:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

list of tango singers
..thanks for informing me. some people are really crazy. Can't we create a deletopedia for them ;-)? Random text creater could be installed there. I mean, they don't care about the content anyway and have not much grasp of what they delete. Thanks to let me know that YOU exist. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh Please
Please don't make me look like a fool in RFA. Thanks :) Nookdog 22:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I phrased that as politely as possible without any sarcasm. The reason I asked you that is because one of the "support" voters undoubtedly would've asked you the same question, and then tried to claim that the entire "oppose" argument is poorly founded.  In any event, sorry if there was any misunderstanding. AdamBiswanger1 00:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry too. I overreacted. Never though someone would challenge the vote of almighty Nookdog :) Nookdog 02:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha no hard feelings. AdamBiswanger1 02:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment in kylu's RfA
Hi, I saw your request that some supporters address the oppose votes. Although I don't make a habit of directly engaging editors that vote opposite of me, I feel that my support vote responds to a number of the oppose votes - specifically the ones that cite "tenure" as a reason for opposing. I don't feel that is a valid reason, any more than it is a valid reason not to promote someone in a workplace who has worked twice as hard as people who have been there longer. As the specific concerns you mentioned in your oppose vote, I have no response. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 01:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for your message. Well, one of my favorite little rants I go on is about logical argumentation, and how, when a consensus needs to be reached, every single point needs to be addressed and argued by both sides, especially when the opposition is so firm and earnest.  I'm sure your familiar with this, but it's just very frustrating when I and others have taken the time to write out a well-reasoned opinion, and others either disregard it, don't read it, or don't care.  Centrx writes a 3 paragraph opinion, and then someone else writes Support per nom.  It's very frustrating, and absolutely nothing positive can emerge from it.   Now I'm not proposing that this is what you are doing in this RfA--I'll take your word that you have well-reasoned responses to the opposing contentions-- but I like to remind other editors that "there are other opinions, and yours will be twice as valuable if you explain it in light of criticism".  Regards, AdamBiswanger1 01:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I do agree. It seems, in general, the people proposing something be done (whether it be RfA, XfD, etc.) have less of a burden than people who don't want it done. I find it equally as frustrating in AfD when there are 20 "Delete per nom"'s to my well thought out keep. I am interested though - what is the solution, logistically speaking?  Do you like a discussion where editors directly engage vote rationales they don't care for, by replying inline (which can render accusations of standoffishness, harrassment, etc.)?  Should the Comments section be reserved for this purpose?
 * I tend to state my reasons in RfA votes and AfD discussions, and I don't directly counter another editor unless I see something that I really disagree with. But.. perhaps that attitude isn't getting us where we want to go. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 02:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Logistically speaking? With what I've seen in some AfD horror scenes, you just can't stop people from voting uninformed.  But, ideally, I love the idea of other editors "directly engaging vote rationales they don't care for" (as long as people can admit that they are wrong and change their votes without any hard feelings).  If what emerges is a small amount of tension between the parties, that's ok because the end result will outweigh it.
 * But the way that RfA's differ from editing disputes in the article namespace is that opinion plays a role. I can say that Kylu isnt' qualified for X, Y, and Z reasons, and you can say that those shortcomings aren't enough to make you vote oppose.  All I need to know is that you read my opinion, thought about it carefully, and then disregarded it.
 * But speaking specifically about Kylu, I really, really, really don't think she should be an admin. I'm very worried about it, because she has so few meaningful edits, I think she'll get bored with Wikipedia, and she seems to lack a thirst for knowledge of policy.  Hopefully the right things will happen, whatever they are.  AdamBiswanger1 02:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I shall endeavor to take your ideas to heart and try to more directly make (or rebut) points in RfA. I know that is a simplistic summary, but I assure you that I understand the depth of your point.  I have never backed away from a disagreement if I thought I was trying to build consensus for the right thing.  Unfortunately, many attempts at consensus are nothing more than groupthink, where people who dissent are either ignored or overwhelmed by opposition.
 * As for Kylu, I respectfully disagree with your assertions. For one, I am not willing to introduce speculation into my decision making process - for instance, speculation that she will become bored with the project.  I think her attitude is in the right place, which will fuel her learning to fill any gaps in her knowledge.  Additionally, I think we could use some admins who aren't interested in major article edits but are willing to just run around and put out little fires.  I'm willing to be an optimist about it. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 13:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ability to switch
On the other hand, I could be viewed as a filp flopper. Thank you for your comments, I really do believe that any XfD or RfA, is an ongoing discussion in which we should examine everything and see how it progresses. Thank you, and have you have been doing quite well yourself. If you need anything feel free to contact me, Yank  sox  13:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Trigger Pads
i edited the article based on your suggestions, be cool if you could take another look and check it?
 * Yea sure--I made a few minor clarifications and then organized it a bit including sections. It's a very good article.  Let me know what you think AdamBiswanger1 14:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems that you copied this article from a website. Now, unfortunetly, it must be removed or changed.  Please see WP:COPYVIO.  If you want to write an article, I invite you to do so, but it must be your own work. AdamBiswanger1 14:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Careful there!
You edited the actual Adw template! . Reverted. (no need to reply) --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Duh. AdamBiswanger1 18:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk: Steve Zahn
My edit wasn't a test, it was a move to speedy a page with cursing and crap on it. 216.141.226.190 03:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the content. Please note that speedy deletes are usually for articles, and almost never for talk pages.  I just went ahead and deleted the info manually.  See WP:CSD for more information.  Sorry for the confusion. AdamBiswanger1 03:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, sorry for the inconvenience. I hate seeing pages littered with foolishness.  Thanks!! 216.141.226.190 03:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Caps lock
Hi, to which edit/article are you referring to me holding down on the caps lock key? I don't remember unintentionally making edits to an article with all capitals. However, I of course could've screwed up, your pointer would be appreciated. --Remy Suen 03:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi there... it was this edit here. It probably makes perfect sense, since you don't remember it, but I'd thought I'd ask you since you are an established user. AdamBiswanger1 03:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)