User talk:Alexjohnc3/Archive 1

Grigori Perelman
Someone keeps removing the link I added a the BBC news story, but this and other recent stories state quite clearly that Perelman has indeed declined the award, so I am trying to remove the fact flag. ---CH 23:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica
Hi, I've noticed your dissatisfaction with the way the Encyclopedia Dramatica article was deleted, so I thought I'd let you know something I recently discovered. I was surprised to see that of the four AfDs   and two DRVs  concerning ED, there is never any mention of this article which was published in the British Sunday Magazine The Observer or this posting at the well known blog Kotaku. Both of these sources are generally considered reliable, and both are indexed by Google News and LexisNexis. That neither of these was ever mentioned by anyone in any of the reams of discussion generated by this controversy, I find amazing. Although I personally have not made up my mind as to whether the article merits inclusion, I thought it only fair to notify you of what appears to be a major oversight in the deletion process. Thank you, and please feel free to contact me here or on my talk page. -- N  scheffey (T/C) 03:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Curious
Can you explain why you edited the userpage of User:Ronin.shinta,, , , , , , and his talkpage? , ...I suppose he is your friend as you calim in that last diff. But it seem odd to say the least...,. and after the kind of personal attacks I see coming from him, , I am hoping he is just your friend, and not simply another account of yours. It also seems odd that you showed up on my talkpage and then he did. Wikipedia is not a playground so be careful. Also, I'm done talking about Encyclopedia Dramatica...so I don't want to hear another word about it on my talk page, thanks.--MONGO 04:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, friends or not, remember that Wikipedia isn't a playground. I doubt that I could make you understand why the ED article was deleted, though I think I made myself clear. Have a good day at school.--MONGO 10:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The article wasn't verifiable, and that is policy. I told you I didn't want to hear about that website again on my talk page.--MONGO 19:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Last warning...you mention that website again on my talk page and I will block you.--MONGO 19:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you unable to read? The article wasn't verifiable...move on.--MONGO 19:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ask User:Nandesuka, who closed out the deletion on the article...maybe he will provided the evidence you claim I can't. There isn't anything else I can add so, best to ask elsewhere.--MONGO 19:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Stop bullying Alexjohnc3. He is my friend, and I will defend him whenever it is needed. Wikipedia regulations are not tools for you to harass people with opinions different from yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronin.shinta (talk • contribs)
 * This was a discussion between MONGO and I. You don't have to do anything, but thanks I guess. --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed conversation
In case anyone wanted to find my messesages, they can be located here. MONGO removed it as "trolling" right before he archived his talk page. --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

re: Encyclopedia Dramatica question
Hi.

I'm not sure how you found me, in your quest to determine the truth about the ED article, but I hope I can tell you what you need to know. It does, indeed, come down to those two policies: WP:V and WP:NOR. The basic problem is that there's no secondary source saying anything substantive about Encyclopedia Dramatica. The site simply hasn't been documented by independent writers. If we're going to apply the same standards to websites that we apply to other organizations, companies, individuals, etc, then we can only report information that's been reported already by some reliable source. That's the basic argument for deletion. If some media coverage arises, or if someone doing a scholarly work on Internet culture or something decides to document ED, then we can use that source to write an article, until then, we've got nothing to work with.

Does that answer your question? -GTBacchus(talk) 08:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, pretty much. Anything we write down based on our own knowledge or experience is, by definition, original research. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI: . In the normal course of events the amount of coverage ED has received from your analysis would, in my opinion, merit an article. However, ED is not the normal course of events from a wiki point of view. I would advise you to approach the subject with caution, work with established editors to gain consensus before taking any action, and, particularly, to pay close attention to Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Proposed decision, where ED is a central topic. The ArbCom decisions may have a significant bearing on this subject. Tyrenius 17:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

MONGO threatened to block you for what he perceived as trolling, which I take to mean pushing a contentious conversation (on a subject which he is particularly sensitive about) to a point of provocation. He did clearly warn you, which is rather better than finding yourself blocked out of the blue without knowing why. And he didn't block you anyway.

ED is different because it attacks wikipedia and its editors, which tends to make them somewhat aggrieved towards it and therefore not want to include it in wikipedia. This doesn't mean it will never get included. It just means people aren't going to be falling over themselves to do so, and, if possible, will exclude it. The situation is made worse by the fact that ED, like some other sites critical of wikipedia, exposes private and personal details of wiki editors/admins, when it can find them out. This can be embarrassing or even dangerous, as admins have received death threats on occasion, and the transition from online to RL harrassment can occur. Jeopardy to a person's job is another possible outcome.

P.S. If an admin threatens to block you if you continue to post about a certain subject on their talk page, it is prudent not to continue to post on their talk page about that subject. And who ever said it was going to be easy?

Tyrenius 23:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * AGF doesn't mean you can't use common sense. If someone is clearly irritated, back off and let things calm down. MONGO is probably the worst person to talk to about ED out of thousands of editors, so choose someone else. I can't tell you exactly what ED said/revealed about MONGO. It might have been address and phone number amongst other things. It's probably on ED still. There's a similar site Wikipedia Review (see the non-article talk page); as regards them, check out User:Katefan0. Somehow or another another similar site Wikitruth does have an article.
 * As MONGO said, the result of the AfD was that ED didn't have sufficient verifiable notability to justify an article, and this is the bottom line. However, it does seem to be getting it now, and when there is enough, then doubtless there will be an article about ED.
 * Rules have a certain elasticity and also they have to be interpreted. Besides which, wiki doesn't exactly have rules. It has policies, guidelines, consensus and established practice etc. The amazing thing is that it manages to create an encyclopedia.
 * Tyrenius 00:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Some ED info if you're curious
Yeah, it's notable enough for an article now.

June 2005:

 * The Guardian, a major United Kingdom newsmagazine, reported on ED's political commentary about the George W. Bush role in the TL;DR article on ED.

January 2006:

 * Bantown claimed responsibility on ED for discovery of a critical Livejournal hack, as reported by the Washington Post.

TV news coverage

 * MSNBC TV - MSNBC, the major and leading cable news network, reported on ED and its role in the RFJason Craigslist Experiment, including screen shots of the website and the URL, and specifically talking ABOUT the site by name repeatedly. Google Video mirror, and YouTube mirror.

International news coverage

 * The Ottawa Sun referenced ED, quoting our take on the evolution of the Emo scene.
 * The Toronto Sun also reported on our coverage of that music scene, in a much more expanded article.
 * Spiegal, a major German news source, reported on ED and Jason Fortuny.
 * La Press Affairs, a leading Francophone news source, also covered ED and Fortuny.

Major blogosphere
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.13.236.244 (talk • contribs)
 * Boing Boing - http://www.boingboing.net/2006/09/10/the_seattle_craigsli.htm
 * Broowaha - http://losangeles.broowaha.com/article.php?id=88
 * Good Morning Silicon Valley - http://blogs.siliconvalley.com/gmsv/2006/09/perhaps_youd_be.html
 * Waxy - http://www.waxy.org/archive/2006/09/08/sex_bait.shtml
 * Wired Blogs - http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/?entry_id=1553329
 * Wired Blogs - http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/index.blog? entry_id=1553813
 * Thanks for the information, I'm already aware of this. One of my friends sent me it who told me about ED (Ninja). ED killed Uncyclopedia in hits even. You probably won't see this because you were using an open proxy, but thanks for trying to make Wikipedia a better place! --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Divine command theroy
Hi Alexjohnc3. I'm sorry but I don't believe that your changes were an improvement to the Justice article. Please feel free to discuss this on the article's talk page. Ben 22:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Please see the talk page. Cheers, Sam Clark 09:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Third world
I don't disagree with your edit in Protestantism, but I did want to point out that historically speaking, China probably would qualify as Third World. The First World used to mean Europe, the US and its allies; the Second World was the USSR and its allies, and the "Third World" was pretty much everyone else. More recently though, Third World has come to mean struggling countries with little GDP and a lot of poor. Peyna 21:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * China apparently is sometimes considered part of the Second World. Peyna 21:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Firefox TOC
Hi. I see you've put back the Firefox TOC. Please could you checkout the discussion page for it to see why it's been removed. This is a legal issue, so I will remove the Swiftfox box, but leave the others for you to do, or to justify on that page. Widefox 17:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't know it was an issue. --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * no problem. You're not the only one to add it in the last 24hrs! ;( I've added some hidden comment. Widefox 18:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:MONGO
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Tbeatty 00:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Guinnog 00:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't be idiots. He's already had personal attacks towards me with no one but myself commenting on them, so I'd thank you to mind your own business. If MONGO gets to be an ass and do whatever his heart desires, can I at least have a short rant about it? --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not being an idiot. Two wrongs do not make a right, as you should know already. If you have a problem with something MONGO has said or done, please raise it in the proper way. Escalating problems is not the way forward. Please leave me a message if you think I can help you, but please do not accuse other editors of being "idiots" or an "ass". Thanks. --Guinnog 10:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * One wrong doesn't make a right either and I was wrong to insult him. However, people who troll MONGO's talk page just annoy me sometimes. --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 11:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. I don't think anything useful is going to come from your continuing to leave messages for MONGO on the subject of Encyclopedia Dramatica. There may be other ways to take your view forwards but I really don't see this way working. Best wishes --Guinnog 11:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You have been mugged
MONGO's not the only one editing your userpage. Buahahaha! Miltopia 18:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. MONGO caught my edit to a 15-year-old's userpage in about 15 seconds.  Miltopia 18:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop defending the trolls now
The next time you infer that I am a dick, you'll be blocked. Remove your comment from Miltopias talkpage now.--MONGO 21:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't meant to be offensive; did you read the Meta page? I'll remove it because of your polite request though. And he's not a troll, he wasn't trying to provoke anyone by editing my userpage. --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ordering others around ain't the best way to be persuasive about whatever dick thing you're talking about. And saying hello to Alex ain't trolling, sheesh.  Not everyone has to hate the people you hate, MONGO.  Besides, I just single-handedly saved an article from Wikifur spam!  Where would you be without me?  Miltopia 20:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

'lo!
HELLO-K37 23:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello! I was actually looking at your user page earlier today. 0_o --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is quite stylish-K37 02:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, now it is. --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 04:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

omg
You've got email! Miltopia 02:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Your question to Mongo
It's perfectly normal to delete the talk page of a deleted page. And as for the protection, well it's hard to believe that that's a genuine question from someone who innocently and genuinely is wondering and has no intent to harass and annoy another user. I'll give you a little piece of advice it you want to avoid being blocked for disruption and harassment. If someone deletes something from his own talk page, assume that he has read it and do  NOT  attempt to repost it. If you are sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia to be able to check logs and know who deleted or protected a particular page, then you are also have sufficient knowledge to be able to work out for yourself why the page you refer to was deleted and protected, whether or not you agree with the decision. AnnH ♫ 21:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Having looked more carefully, I see that your second edit was not replacing something that MONGO had removed (although your first one was), so I apologize for using rollback when reverting you, and also for threatening to block you. See below. AnnH ♫ 02:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it normal for someone to say, "deleted more garbage about that piece of shit website and the jerks who contribute there," in an edit and then delete and protect a talk page about the article relating to the discussion (hence my question)? Please don't threaten to block me, I'm harassing anyone, I was asking why he felt the need to do that. I don't understand what you mean by "well it's hard to believe that that's a genuine question from someone who innocently and genuinely is wondering and has no intent to harass and annoy another user," I have no intent to annoy anyone, it's actually others who are annoying me. I think I may have reposted a comment I made that was removed from MONGO's talk page before, sorry, I'll make sure not to do that again though if my comments are ever removed from someone's talk page. Thanks for the advice! No, I don't know why it was deleted, and yes, I do know how to view the logs. Could you tell me why if you have a chance? Thanks again! --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "piece of shit" quotation, I don't ever personally use that language, but I think I'm the unusual one there, not MONGO. One thing I can say is that if I did use that kind of language, I would use it if provoked the way MONGO has been. To answer your question, that particular website has made, and still makes, some extremely vile and disgusting attacks on several Wikipedians. MONGO is one of the victims, but by no means the only one. This case has led to a lot of nastiness and ill feeling on Wikipedia, and has also involved attempts to obtain MONGO's IP address. I was not really aware of this when it was going on (actually, it's still going on), but the article about that website was deleted. Frankly, it's not notable enough to justify keeping it when it's being used to attack, intimidate, and harass. The arbitration committee has ruled that it is an attack site, and that links to it should be removed. In other words, we don't want to give it extra publicity; we don't want to increase its traffic. Unfortunately, there are some people here at Wikipedia who are more than happy to publicize the site in the full knowledge of the extremely low and insulting jokes made on that site about individual people being fat or having had sex-change therapy or other such inappropriate attempts at humour. Suffice it to say that I do not have a high opinion of such people. I am a member of the Queen's English Society. As it happens, I do not state that or link to its website on my user page. But, if I did, and I subsequently discovered that the QES was making very inappropriate jokes about, say, black people, I would remove the links immediately, and I would support any other Wikipedians who were trying to remove such links. I would certainly not have a section on my user page giving a little plug for the site, saying that it was unfairly removed from Wikipedia, and getting round an ArbCom ruling by linking to other sites that linked directly to the offending site. Simply put, my sense of solidarity for the people attacked in such a vile way would be far greater than any wish I had to link to such a site.


 * Anyway, the article was deleted, and decent people are helping to remove links. Some less (to my mind) decent people are protesting this, and are also protesting the deletion of the article. There's nothing irregular in deleting the talk page of a deleted article, and it's particularly appropriate if trolling is continuing on the talk page (as was the case here).


 * With regard to my threat to block you &mdash; I do apologize for that. I saw this edit summary, which accused MONGO of vandalism, and saw that it had been rolled back by an admin. For the record, you should not replace comments that a user has removed from his talk page; that is regarded as harassment. If he has removed them, you know that he has seen them. Anyway, I then saw that you had posted again. I clicked on that diff, saw that it was yet another post on a subject that I know MONGO does not want messages about. I assumed that that was what you had reinstated the first time (with the very wrong edit summary that accused MONGO of vandalism), and so I rolled you back.


 * I should have looked more carefully before jumping to conclusions. If you had not made that first edit in which you reverted MONGO's own removal of unwanted posts and threads from his own talk page (bearing in mind that he has been the victim of some pretty atrocious trolling), I would not have reverted your second edit. If I had looked more carefully, and had not assumed that the second edit was the same as the first, I might still have removed it, but would not have used rollback. That said, it's quite obvious that MONGO does not want those posts on his talk page, regardless of the intentions of those who have posted them. I will rephrase what I said by saying that I am prepared to block anyone who, knowing that MONGO has been trolled and harassed, keeps posting stuff about that website on his talk page, or starts following him to other articles, as another user was doing recently.


 * I am glad that you have removed this. In fact, I was going to ask you to do so. It would probably be a good idea to stay away from MONGO for the moment. If you dislike something that he writes, bear in mind that he has had a lot of provocation, and that the contents of your user page are unlikely to make him regard you as someone of good will. You are free to request a deletion review for the talk page that he deleted, but I would strongly advise against it. Administrators are unlikely to agree to undelete something that breeds trolling and harassment, and you're unlikely to get consensus. Also, it may stir up a lot more ill will. We've had more than enough, and if you think of the spirit of the ArbCom ruling about removing links, you'll see that the more trusted members of Wikipedia do not want this trolling and harassment to continue. AnnH ♫ 02:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughtful comments! ^_^ I'll get back to this as soon as I can, but I've got a lot of work for school. I would like to mention quickly that I wasn't trying to get around the ArbComm decision, but rather to provide a source of information on ED since it was what I was writing about on my userpage. I made the note so that people wouldn't accidentally believe that I was somehow "linking to ED" or that I wasn't following any of the other decisions made by ArbComm. I also didn't notice (somehow 0_o) that it was on his user talk page, so I apologize for the revert. I saw that he locked and deleted the ED talk page, but I'm not sure where I thought that comment was made. I guess I just saw the edit summary in his contributions (I was wondering if he had done anything else besides lock & delete the talk page, which is how I found out that he tried to ban a friend that I know through ED indefinately) and I must have just decided to revert it. --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've read your comment (before I just scanned it), so I'll address all the points you made excluding those already addressed in my previous message. First of all, you should know that wikis have a wide range of content. Some articles are very informative on Encyclopedia Dramatica, while most are not. There are some that are very offensive or somewhat offensive, but that is no reason to prevent any links or content that may be useful from being put on Wikipedia. It does make sense, however, to say that no links to pages that on ED that attack Wikipedians will be allowed. Regardless of its notoriety, it's still notable and it is not an attack site by nature, it's a site about Internet memes and drama, basically. Some examples include those posted by an anonymous user on my talk page. Now back to your analogy, I am a member at ED (I created my account after I found out about this going on via Wikipedia), but I, personally, don't like ED that much, for many of the same reasons you and others (like MONGO) don't. Unlike with your association with the QES, I don't have much of an attachment to ED. I just think that it has been removed on Wikipedia by biased editors who feel that just because it happens to be offensive to some people on Wikipedia, including MONGO, who think they should be able to completely remove anything relating to it. A good example is the GNAA article. They much more well known for causing havoc and being offensive than ED, yet they have an article. They attempt to insult homosexuals and African-Americans in their name alone and if you visit their website, I suggest you don't click on the "members" link. If I had an article made about me on ED that attacked me, I wouldn't even consider removing references to it on Wikipedia. I might add to the article that it is infamous for making attacks on people, but I wouldn't try to get rid of it.


 * Removing links to it on people's own userpages is not being a "decent person", it's just vandalism that can't be reverted. If it's the norm to delete talk pages of deleted articles, then why does it say, "Restoration can be discussed on the talk page or at Deletion Review." I'll continue later on. --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you and MONGO have it out for ED, especially after reading your comment on the DRV (in which you felt the need TO USE ALL CAPS FOR SOME REASON). I've had enough of the crap coming from people like you who feel they can abuse their privileges as administrators. I would like you to stay away from me and that's especially true for MONGO who has made multiple edits to my userpage without my permission, though he knows much better than to do that. Now go away and play in some traffic. --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

On another note, I can't believe I tried to apologize to MONGO. I hate it when I try to be nice to people who are too arrogant to even realize their mistakes. Oh well, that's what I'd expect from someone like him. I guess I'm just not used to people like MONGO; I've had more experience with the religiously crazy than the power/censorship/anti-criticism crazy type. --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Spurious vandalism warnings
Hi. Don't leave spurious "vandalism" warnings. There are a number of valid reasons for removing content from talk pages; if you're confused about an edit by an established user, assume good faith and ask for a clarification. Throwing around the word "vandalism" is likely to lead to any concern you may have being dismissed. Jkelly 21:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't throwing around the word vandalism. The WP:VANDAL policy clearly states, "Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism," and I was not violating any of the exceptions to this rule. I'm not assuming that the removal of my comment was meant to be harmful either, nevertheless, it was vandalism. As for the "established user" remark, I could care less about who is and who is not an "established user". I consider new users equal to users who have been on Wikipedia for long periods of time, so I think "established" users should be given just as much notice about their actions as new users should, though you may have different views. --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Hey, if you're wondering about the ED talk page getting to deleted you should take it to the deletion review, like they did with wikifur. That way you won't have admins jumping down your throat :-( Miltopia 21:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently deleting talk pages of deleted articles is a common practice. I'm not sure still, but I'll wait before trying to review the deletion. Even with WP:AGF, it's hard not to be skeptical that there wasn't some alternative reason for its deletion & protection based on: . --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the tag on deleted articles say the talk page can be used for discussing recreation? That's what caught my interest here in the first place :-(  Miltopia 22:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, I forgot about that (I'm pretty tired today...). I'll wait to see what I hear from AnnH before getting a deletion review though. --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought you might like to know about the DRV for the talk page. Don't post anything about it offsite, especially on ED, though you probably know it's not the best idea. =P --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, that was pretty good except for the links to random Wikipedias. I know why they're there though... --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * On second thought, not too many of those were good... oh well, still interesting. --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Working together
Hi Alexjohnc3! Re your message on Nov. 20 2006 to FAAFA. Please refrain from such comments which cause an atmosphere of greater conflict. Wikipedia's rule of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another. Thank you! ^_^ -- Electric Eye  ( talk ) 03:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So you're leaving me a message that about being incivil because I thanked a user for trying to help Wikipedia? --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Since your thank you message included overtones of intimidation, I left you a message to encourage you to get along better with others in Wikipedia. -- Electric Eye  ( talk ) 01:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't meant to be intimidating at all. I've seen him edit a few times and been treated unfairly, so I was just trying to be nice. I guess I didn't word it very well, but we also have WP:AFG for a reason... Sorry for any misunderstanding that I may have caused. --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand. ^_^ -- Electric Eye  ( talk ) 02:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Legal status of Taiwan
Hi there, After seeing your edit, I see your point; however, I am inclined to revert the edit because the section in question (Argument in favor of United States sovereignty) describes such a fringe position that I didn't want to create a POV problem by giving it undue weight. As such, I noted that "a small minority" believes thus. Let me know if I have misunderstood. Thanks.Ngchen 02:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I just thought that it seemed a bit POV to say a "small minority" at the time, but it's fine with me if you want it that way though. --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edit. I think things are great as of right now. Ngchen 16:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)