User talk:Anastrophe/Archive 2005-2007

Welcome
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) will produce your name and the current date. You should always sign talk pages, but not articles. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ann Heneghan (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Changing username
Hi - Some time ago, you left a request on Changing username. This facility is now up and running again. Are you still interested in changing your name? If so, please confirm at Changing username. thanks, Warofdreams talk 13:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous editing
Hi Anastrophe. I just want to say I agree with what you stand on anonymous editors: allowing users to simply identify themselves by their (dynamic) IP address is more trouble than it's worth. Cheers, --A bit iffy 13:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Me too; and I've done something about it, putting the case on the Village Pump [(here)]. I've been bleating about this now for a while in my edit summaries, endlessly reverting the graffiti; this may be a bit more effective. I encourage you to support the move on Village Pump. Best, Bill 13:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I also agree with you about not permitting anonymous editors to create and edit. I had thus far edited and wrote on less publicized articles that weren't vandalized. I'd frequently read of edit wars against vandals but didn't realize the severity of this problem until my participation on the Rosa Parks article. I contributed substantially to the article and would find that the page would consistently be vandalized with hate messages or pranks. It no longer became "fun" to write for the article as it started to become a chore to have to combat these pranksters and malicious anonymous "editors". I also wrote in the Village Pump that registration only takes a few seconds but it shows commitment. While it can't deter everyone, it helps deter a lot of the quick pranksters. Wikipedia could have a system where you register with a userid and valid email. The system emails you to confirm that it is a real email address. That way, there's at least something to refer back to when there's vandalism. I do hope that Wikipedia changes its "easy" edit policies. I am all for democracy and ease of edit, etc. but I think that history has shown that while the concept is great in a Utopian society, it can't work in real life because there are just too many people with itchy hands or evil thoughts who wish to mess things up. It also unfairly leans an article very heavily on the shoulders of several people who have to become the article's manager(s)/keeper(s) for good. Not a good way to scale or expand at all. My two cents --speedoflight | talk to me 20:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

well said, both of you. as it stands, WP is barely a step above anarchy...Anastrophe 20:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I really hope that you do stay, if only to repeat the messages that you have expressed on your user page and here. I'm still ambivalent about the long term prospects of wikipedia, but I'm staying here for a while in the hope that it does succeed. Mostlyharmless 00:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * thanks for your note of support. i'm still deeply ambivalent about WP as well, but i'm still here too. i love knowledge, words, and the accurate use of the latter to increase the former. so i continue editing articles here and there, correcting typos, rewording things, and in rare cases contributing some actual knowledge or clarification to articles. it's fun, even with all the downsides. Anastrophe 00:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps if you two stopped attacking extrapolations with prediction confidence intervals clearly shown, it wouldn't seem like there are so many downsides. &mdash;James S. 04:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * you're rapidly making yourself a wikicrank, Nrcprm2026. this portion of the discussion had nothing to do with you. but then, it's the nature of the paranoic to believe everyone's out to get him. Anastrophe 05:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikisona
It is felt that the article you created at Wikisona is not suitable for the (Main) namespace. I have moved it to User:/Wikisona. We already have Are You a Wikipediholic Test so your article might be accepted in the Wikipedia: namespace. -- RHaworth 12:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * whoops. sorry about that. still learning the finer subtleties of namespaces. thanks for moving it. Anastrophe 18:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Ad-Hominem and Krakatoa...
Hi Anastrophe.

Can you explain how my comment on Talk:Global warming can be interpreted as an Ad hominem (i.e. an attack at the man, not the argument)? Which argument? Which man? Thanks.

As for your Krakatoa remark: Unless I'm mistaken, Krakatoa had no long-term effect on the CO2 signal. It did have some short and medium term effect on the climate, of course, but that is not the same. I am not aware of any reasonable short- or medium term natural developments that would influence the CO2 signal in a significant way compared to the human signal. So I think your edit overstates the uncertainty. Note that the IPCC has made a number of projections based on different human emission scenarios.

--Stephan Schulz 13:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Survivor Spoiler Image
Hello. I saw that you removed an image from the Survivor article, citing that it was a spoiler image. I put an image of tribal council there for two reasons. First, that part of the article contains a lot of whitespace and looks blank. Second, that area of the article discusses tribal council. I thought since there is a spoiler image at the top of the article and since it was an episode that previously aired it would have been okay to post that image. I would still like to have an image there, or at least something to cover that white space. Could you let me know what you think would be a more suitable image? Possibly one from the very first tribal council of Guatemala? Thanks. Jtrost 00:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Poster Child???
I'm a little upset about your flippant critique and baseless defense over at. I invite you to justify your opinions with logic instead of vitriol. Nrcprm2026 11:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * (above apparently posted by Nrcprm2026. attribution later corrected by Nrcprm2026.) Anastrophe 19:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Extrapolation is informed speculation, not fiction. The data points are historical, the extrapolation explains more than 98% of their variation, and has only an 18% chance of doing so by chance. Would you have any problems if the graph had 95% confidence interval bands, above and below the extrapolation? Nrcprm2026 20:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC) (copied here from my talk page)

I see you have removed the graph I am working on from several pages because you say it is "unreliable" -- how can an extrapolation with the prediction confidence interval displayed not be "reliable?" James P. S. 20:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * easy. compare to the first two revisions of the same graph. in fact, why not create a graph showing the confidence interval of these three models against each other. then tell me your graph is reliable. i am in the process of posting a 'critique' of these graphs on my user page.Anastrophe 20:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, I remind you that both graphs fall well within each other's 95% prediction confidence interval bands. I look forward to your critique.  I suggest that if you think you can do better, that you make your own graph, so that objective third parties can compare the two and decide which has more merit. James P. S. 20:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * a graph by me adds nothing. your own three graphs show very well that there is no reliability to your modeling. Anastrophe 20:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Since you have shown at Talk:Global_warming that you lack a basic understanding of real versus actual cost to adjust for inflation, I am not suprised that you are unwilling to propose an alternative graph. But don't you think it would only be fair for me to critique your attempt?  Goose, gander. James P. S. 20:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * you're welcome to do whatever you want on your own user page. knock yourself out. i acknowledged my error. thus far, you have refused to explain why a discrepancy of more than 3 trillion dollars does NOT suggest you are doing something wrong. i look forward to revision four of your graph, showing that costs will be 580 billion in 2025. then revision five, showing 460 billion in 2025. then how about revision six, showing 2 trillion in 2025. this is an encyclopedia, not a place to engage your phantasies.Anastrophe 20:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have repeatedly explained that the difference between the second and third revisions fall well within each other's 95% prediction confidence intervals. Do you know what a 95% prediction confidence interval is? Your sarcasm is impolite and uncalled-for, and nominally against the rules here. I believe the only way for us to resolve this issue is for you to create your own alternative graph.  Why don't you download the free, 30-day evaluation of [TableCurve http://www.systat.com/products/TableCurve2D/] which I used, and give it a try with the data set on my userpage? James P. S. 20:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * the "data set" on your page is a fundamental part of the problem. it is NOT a dataset. it is an estimation by examination of the values on an extant graph, and does not reference the *actual source data* used to generate that graph. furthermore, the dataset ends in 1998 - it is nearly eight years out of date, and incomplete. you are "predicting" values for which data already exists - it would be interesting to see how that eight year interval compares with your 'predictions' of already past history. but clearly, you are hell-bent to have this graph on wikipedia - what your motivation is i can only guess, but i would surmise you're a global warming hysteric, since you had no problem embracing 4 trillion as the cost in a previous graph. i could be wrong; it's just my opnion. wikipedia, however, suffers further as a reference source with the inclusion of this meaningless graph. i'm done. have fun. Anastrophe 20:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Back when I took statistics, there was nothing wrong with digitizing data from a graph. I agree that it would be great to have the 1999-2005 data, and I want to encourage you to try to find it. I do believe that wind power is a very important but neglected alternative to fossil fuels. I believe that makes me a realist, not a "hysteric." In any case, thank you for the helpful comments early on. James P. S. 21:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * i have not made, nor do i make, any claims of being a statistician, (or economist for that matter!). the onus is upon you to find the raw source data; you are the person who is making these extrapolations from an incomplete dataset. i believe also that wind energy is neglected, but i don't think it's as important as advances in solar power, which will eventually prove to be the only (and best, by far) alternative to fossil fuels, in my opinion. though it may seem like it, i have no personal ill-will towards you - i don't know you from Adam - but i do think that these speculations about future costs - which have vacillated wildly - are not helpful. stick to graphing the already-incurred costs. that should be more than cautionary enough. it is troubling to me that the IPCC's raw data is so difficult to find. Anastrophe 21:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me drop in my 3.141592652589793238462643383279502884197... cents: the second graph, from what I read, differs only that it is more precise - it uses more data points, and thus the expectation is, by information theory, expected to be a more accurate (and thus therefore different, yes) prediction than the first graph. The third graph has a different vertical axis, and is thus altogether unrelated to the first two, pending a transformation function between the two spaces, and lacking or not lacking such a function (unless the function is f(x)=x), the graphs are expected by mere common sense to be completely different.

So if your intent here was to show statistics lying, you failed. People can decieve by using less accurate statistics or simply using the wrong measures on one axis. But that is no fault of statistics, that's incompetence or maliciousness on the part of the person exploiting people's ignorance, rather than contributing to their education. Kevin baas 18:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The vertical and horizontal axes are both exactly the same on all three graphs. The only people who accuse me of lying are those in deep denial about the relation between radiative forcing and the strength of storms. Greater atmospheric energy means increases in storm strength and average windspeed. The tortured and pathetic arguments of those who deny the obvious connection remind me of the antiheliocentrics against Copernicus. &mdash;James S. 04:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * both exactly the same? you're kidding, right?

first graph, vertical axis, billions 2001 US dollars, 0, 200, 400, 600, 800 second graph, vertical axis,billions 2001 US dollars, 0, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 third graph, vertical axis, billions 2001 US dollars, 0, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300

that's the most peculiar definition of 'exactly the same' i've run across. Anastrophe 04:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the units, not the labels. &mdash;James S. 05:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC opened for Mr j galt
An RfC has been opened here against User:User:Mr j galt (talk • contribs). If you are familar with his editing and would like to add your input, please feel free to do so, whatever your POV. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

(the following was left on my user page rather than the discussion page.)

Mengele
You could've at least left the part about the sexual revolution in. "Pre-anticipated" is more of a redundancy than... Multifauceted 21:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Few Friends
Anastrophe, please do not take this the wrong way, but your tone, infliction and manner of writing makes me believe you most likely have very few friends.Shoessss 02:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

the art of the sidestepped ad hominem. brilliantly executed. listen, if you don't like honesty, perhaps wikipedia isn't a good fit for you. littering articles with opinions and feel-good commentary is unencyclopedic. i suggest you start a blog, rather than edit what is ostensibly an encyclopedia. (i believe i hurt mr. shoessss feelings with the summaries i tendered for my edits on Hybrid Generator and related article.) Anastrophe 16:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And by your response, you prove my point. Regarding the edits, when I post an article or add significantly to an article, I do not mind criticisms and suggestions from any and all editors.  However, the tone and infliction does give me pause on how I take their edits and suggestions.  Try diplomacy once in awhile.  You may be surprised with the outcomes.  Either way, have a great day. Shoessss 17:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * you seem to be deeply unclear on the concept (as well as the correct spelling of 'inflection'). your initial comment is an egregious ad hominem, that you attempt to cloak with syrupy intonations such as "have a great day". spare me the condescension. the number of friends I have - or lack - is irrelevant to the veracity of the summary i used in editing the articles. your use of ad hominem attack does nothing to counter my comments, nor further your argument. i would again suggest that perhaps you might consider another hobby if your feelings are so easily hurt by the cold slap of reality. and again, rather than cluttering the user discussion of both our pages, how about discussing the matter in the article discussion area. that's the wikipedia way of dealing with the issue. Anastrophe 17:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Seventh Seal Kite
Does the film definitely have a bird on wires, or have you misunderstood what another editor meant by "kite" (it's also the name of a bird of prey)? It's been a while since I've seen the film, and I can't find any useful sources to check. --McGeddon 09:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice name
Does "anastrophe" actually mean anything to... barbarians (<---look up etymology), or is it only Greeks who can decipher your (very intuitive) username? BTW, since I brought it up in that history page, I liked our friendly chat there. No grudges, I hope... NikoSilver 21:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * no grudges, certainly. i tend to be 'curt' in my edit summaries, indeed, but grudges are pointless. thanks for your comments. Anastrophe 22:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I actually found our chat there amusing; thanks for being 'curt', or it wouldn't have been. So, how did you come up with a Greek name? Math behind it (I see you're good at it)? NikoSilver 22:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I always post where the thread starts, and say so on my talkpage header (seldomly helps). Nice to meet you, Pavlo, and glad to notice that half prevails in you! NikoSilver 23:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Example.com
Example.com's purpose is to be an example website. Wikipedia articles are mirrored on hundreds of different sites and may be published in printed form as well. We cannot, therefore, rely on the context you mention being preserved. The use of Wikipedia's web address also seems questionable with regard to Avoid self-references. Feezo (Talk) 19:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe you're misconstruing the RFC. example.com is intended to be used when providing examples of DNS where use of real addresses may cause conflicts when working with nameserver software. The use of a real domain name for rhetorical purposes is entirely valid, and for the layman - who is not working with nameserver software - less confusing. As for being self-referential, in this instance I'm afraid you are again misconstruing the intent. It is an example reference for a domain name, it is not referring in a literal sense to wikipedia. However, any domain would do, so I'll change it to something neutral. Anastrophe 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I can't think of a better domain to use. example.com fails as a useful example in my opinion, and the politics of finding a 'neutral' domain name to use instead fail me (yahoo.com, the most trafficked site on the net - commercial enterprise, not appropriate to use, really; google.com, well, i don't like the idea of google as the most obvious/general example; whitehouse.gov - talk about a can of worms; nasa.gov - 'you're being US centric!', - etc etc etc.. I still maintain that wikipedia.org is probably the best compromise of the lot. Anastrophe 19:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Whew, two misconstrusions at once! Pretty impressive, eh? Seriously though, Example.com is intended to be used in documentation, as well as server software (read it!) Your point about the layman is appreciated, but I think even the naïve user will recognize the .com tld; if you believe they are likely to be confused even so, www may be prepended as well. Feezo (Talk) 20:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a fairly trivial issue overall. In other words, you're welcome to change it back. It's not that big a deal. Anastrophe 20:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, no problem. I've left it alone, since it is, as you say, a rather trivial issue. Feezo (Talk) 08:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Undos ar Apollo program
Hi! Sorry about the undos at Apollo program. It doesn't warrant an edit war, but the right thing to do is discuss it at the talk page. See you there! (sdsds - talk) 23:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Climate change denial edits
Thank you for your positive contributions in trying to make the article more NPOV. They are appreciated. (I first posted this on that talk page, and then realized after the fact that it'd be more appropriate here.) Ben Hocking (talk 21:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR
You have broken the 3RR rule on Climate change denial. I will not report this, as it seems to be your first warning. Please take more care in the future. --Kim D. Petersen 05:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read and understand the three revert rule before editing the page again, as a partial revert may put you into the dangerzone again. --Kim D. Petersen 05:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Telecine
Hi, Anastrophe. I have reverted your removal of pronounciations from Telecine. Please review the discussion on the talk page and contribute there if you can substantiate the invalidity of the pronounciation. There is substantial regional variation about how this word is pronounced. Thanks. (Also, "minor" edits should be restricted to non-contentious edits. I don't think this really qualifies, since obviously someone had added this deliberately). jhawkinson 02:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I'll respond on Talk:Telecine as appropriate. In your note there, you say, you were "previously aware of this discussion." If you're aware of a discussion and choose to make an edit that contravenes that concensus of the discussion, I think it would be advisable to reply to the discussion, preferably in advance of your edit. Thank you! jhawkinson 14:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

manual of style
Please read the Manual of Style and let me know about changing Juan Vallejo Corona back to my revision. The word "homosexual" was not a matter of colloquialism vs. formality, but an issue of using nouns "a homosexual" vs. adjectives "a black person" to describe social groups. The wording in your current revision is not permitted in the Manual of Style. Popkultur 21:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

barry bonds
Cool down on this Barry Bonds issue. It is getting ridiculous.--Herb gecht 18:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Give us a break
On DJB article (you just took out my section again, which was there for ages). Bernstein's dress style is very distinctive; the guy's famous for it. Do you know anything about him? Look at the photo on the webpage, O Remover! Isn't that a source? I could give you more photos like that. Please tell me what a reliable source is to verify that he dresses in black is! I find it annoying that one spends effort maintaining pages on distinctive points (which are correct) then others take it out. PLEASE NOTE: It's MADDENING! (Did I see that word above?) SIGH!!! Please do something more constructive instead of destructive. From a very annoyed Wikipedia contributor, who tries to keep things accurate (and fixes drivel written by others). Allansteel 07:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

More
Saw your reply. I understand the "policy" idea. But it is totally subjective and arbitrary as to what to take out and what to keep (i.e., what is kept in wikipedia in general is 99% non-verified). Take the whole intro to that DJB article! There is no source on any statement in it. Like: he's at UIC, his DOB, his degrees, what he's done, the school he went to, that he's a mathematician, that he's controversial, etc. (isn't that just like he wears black?), ad nauseam. Most wikipedia articles are like that: 99% full of statements with no refs, and will always be like that. Also, things like category below that he's a Jewish mathematician (again, no ref). Why don't you delete his DOB, and that he's at Chicago, etc. and other basic facts like that, since no refs? Allansteel 08:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Climate change denial criticisms sandbox
I've created a sandbox that I'm inviting you and others to contribute to. Don't get me wrong, I still think you're wrong (about the notability of pundits making the connection itself as opposed to the notability of pundits reporting on those making the connection), but I want to give you the chance to convince me without a lot of deleting going on. Ben Hocking (talk 15:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete
Dear Anastrophe,

I understand that my Edit is « nope, sorry. that's not encyclopedic at all ». But, do you think of seeing this kind of IP in the corporation's article ? The edit who is not encyclopedic. I love wikipedia and spend also time to edit my own articles in English, French and Russian about History, Art, etc. (with a login !). I just wish that users be conscious of the situation, that's all. Have you got an idea to do it in the best way (be serious please) ?

Sorry to write here. I would be happy to read your answer.

Sincerely yours,

80.32.246.17 02:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing issue
I am not engaging in emotional argument, but just cover a serious issue. In your reply to me, you didn't address my point, which I'm seriously asking you about. If all statements in Wikipedia must be sourced, then why don't you delete every sentence in Wikipedia which doesn't have a source referenced? Quite seriously. That would surely delete more than 90% of it all. I mean that seriously, but not as a taunt. Your point about inclusion is a bit offensive, because it implied that anything I would contribute is bad, and it's not the way I think (i.e., do something bad if others do it). Look at my edits (a lot of it is fixing stupidities) and decide whether my stuff is the kind of stuff you listed. But anyway, you are just not addressing the point: how are you going to be consistent: either get rid of ALL unreferenced statements (so most of W), or if you remove a tiny amount and leave the rest, why do you remove "this" and not "that"? Can't you see my simple point? Allansteel 02:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

DiFi polls
I put the August poll back in, just because it strikes me that if we're going to have a poll, it should be the newest one available. But... you make a good point. What makes the SurveyUSA poll better than any other, and should it just be continuously updated? Perhaps we should just remove the polls entirely except around definable times, such as election cycles. Your thoughts? FCYTravis 02:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Polls
Hey. The polls I put in are just the approval ratings of some members of the U.S Senate. The polls I put in are just what there constituents think of there job-doing. (I know job-doing is not a word!) I intend to go back and check my edits. Thank you for your concern! =)

Politics rule 14:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Qmail
You did a great job fixing up the qmail page! Cheers, MonsterShouter 19:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Durp. MonsterShouter 23:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Meant to say [derp]. MonsterShouter 20:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Links in Wikitables
It is fairly standard practice on WP and especially in the best lists such as those at WP:FLC to link the first appearance of a linkable term in a table. I am reverting Barry Bonds on this basis.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

removal of unsourced material
I disagree with what you removed from obesity, not so much as a dispute over specific facts but as really bad policy. WP has evolved over the last few years. Until this past couple of years, many large new articles on relatively uncontroversial topics were written with no references. Few encyclopedia articles are referenced intensively like academic review articles. When you remove material that is probably accurate and key to an article because it is unreferenced, you are not doing us any favors and your actions are little better than vandalism. If you feel the information needs referencing, then provide a reference. If you feel the information is false, then substitute correct info with a reference. If are uncertain of the accuracy but feel the topic should be addressed, then ask on the talk page. Arbitrary and capricious removals of random sentences (why not the other 47 unreferenced assertions in that article?) does not improve the articles and causes offense to constructive editors. Many of us have no admiration or respect for those who demand citation but will not provide it. Either add references or leave it for those of us who want to contribute material, not destroy it. alteripse 17:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore
Discussed a month ago. Don't lecture me if you don't know the facts. Turtlescrubber 18:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Barry Bonds
See me at Bonds talk. I missed your comments.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Angrymansr 01:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Barry Bonds/Ecko Article
Sorry, guy. I know you don't want messages here...but this is called a "Talk" page and since you don't want to discuss this (you'll never look at what I have to say), I have to resort to this. You wanna be a Wiki writer, then expect people to speak to you. I'm not going to debate language with you using only a certain amount of characters in the "Edit summary". I'm either writing you here or we're having a talk in the discussion part of the article. I just wanted to tell you that I re-wrote the Bonds comment entirely and ran it by BigNole, somebody I'm certain you've spoken to in the past. He and I agreed that it sounded pretty good. Again, sorry to leave a message on your aptly-named "Talk" page...but look on the bright side: you just saved a few dollars by not taking me to lunch and paying for it. :) TabascoMan77 16:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Civility
Been away. Just read your last comment to me in the Barry Bonds discussion page. I would suggest that you take a look at the WP:Civility page. It has some good tips on how to avoid future disputes with other users. Cheers, brother. TabascoMan77 12:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Barry Bonds GAC?
I am posting here instead of on the talk page because I don't want the GAC reviewer to see my opinion, but I made comments about the GAC here. What do you think?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you missed my point. What do you think of a person who is in his first day as a registered user submitting an article to WP:GAC, that is not a very likely promotion candidate?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * O.K. Let me ask this. You and I are the lead editors based on this tool. I am trying to request your opinion on whether you think the article is ready to be nominated.  If I were going to nominate an actively edited article like this, given my current experience at WP, I would ask you whether you think it was ready.  I currently think it falls short and am considering requesting a withdrawal of the nomination.  I know you are going to avoid the issue of whether I should pursue withdrawing the nom., but would think you could answer whether you think it should go to GA yet.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Owe, the yellow hurts my eyes......
You creat'em Wikilinki Re-Direct to, Tinker to Evers to Chance; I fix 'em Tinker to Evers to Chance. WikiDon 21:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert on article Topps Meat Company
I noticed that you reverted my edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Topps_Meat_Company&diff=162541422&oldid=162536426) to Topps Meat Company, coulsd you please give rational for this revert on my talk page. -- ( Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 00:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Larry Craig
To quote the article "Sen. Craig won't resign in sex sting plea" which is cited right next to the senetcne I added "When my term has expired, I will retire and not seek re-election," So basically you removed cited facts fromawiki article. Pkease check the citations before removing data.--Dr who1975 01:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Craig
I could argue that it is a fact that Larry craig could change is mind and I can cite it. However, I am inclined to agree that it is probably excessive and leading information. The thing is, you removed the entire senetence, not just the part about him maybe changing his mind. Somebody else has corrected it without removing the entire sentence since all this began so that sounds like a good place to let it sit.--Dr who1975 15:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comments at Talk:Dick Cheney
Hello Anastrophe. I'm a volunteer at WP:WQA, and I'm responding to this alert] by User:WikiDon. I'm frankly inclined to agree with him that suggesting that other users have become (or appear to have become) unhinged isn't really very commensurate with WP:CIVIL, and I'd urge you to try to refrain from such immoderate language in the future. That said, you were certainly provoked (see my response to WikiDon), and he's got to change his behaviour as well. On another note, I appreciate that you don't care for user talk page comments, and I understand your reasons (there are too many editors who are here to talk to each other rather than make mainspace edits to improve the encyclopedia). This would have been out of place on an article talk page, though; if you'd prefer, we can continue this discussion at WP:WQA rather than on our talk pages. Sarcasticidealist 08:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Tactic for fighting fire
Try water :) Cheers to you! Gwen Gale 15:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Your change to 2000 Election
I'm just about to add a comment to the discussion page there on your change to me change, wanted to alert you. Merrily 23:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. ''You've been reverting the page a lot in the past few days. I count no less than four reverts in the last two hours alone. Please stop edit warring.'' Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 07:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A brief comment, as requested
Send someone you are in a content dispute to WP:AIV again, after one warning misrepresented as a final warning, and you will be blocked yourself. Neil  ☎  09:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * i would like to add that the above is false. please review the edit history of the talk page for user WiiCameToWiki. I gave several warnings, which he deleted from his talk page. I definitely did not misprepresent one warning as a final warning. on that basis alone i believe this block is unjustified. thank you. Anastrophe 16:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. . Neil   ☎  11:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be for blatant vandalism.... did you feel it was blatant vandalism? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * yes - again, based upon the structure of the edits, their pace, the lockstep, unvarying nature of them, the fact that it's a 'new' user account, and that account has never performed any edits on any other articles or any other content. this type of edit on the barry bonds article has been endemic, which is why i requested partial protection a couple of weeks ago, which stopped the majority of it. thanks. Anastrophe 18:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks J.smith for the unblock - however, I still appear to be blocked due to an 'autoblock' of my IP. This is a fixed block of IP's delegated to me, 206.176.249.29/28. The only other person capable of using this IP would be my wife, who doesn't edit on wikipedia.Anastrophe 21:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Embedded Image
Thank you kindly for making the embedded image of the Zodiac killer's cipher! You have solved a problem that has been plaguing editors there for more than a year! You couldn't possibly know how much help you have given, but just know there are many on the article who now consider you a hero! Jeffpw 06:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment requested
To avoid an edit war with you, I have requested your input on Talk:United States presidential election, 2000 regarding the inconsistency you restored. Regards.--Old Hoss 17:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Side note
I just wanted to say that I am not singling you out, I was just looking for your reasoning, as in hindsight I am sure someone else would have reverted it. If it is spelled out on the talk page, then hopefully that will be that! Regards.--Old Hoss 18:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

ExxonMobil
User:Anastrophe, User:76.100.55.131, User:205.217.105.2 - you are all sailing close to the Three Revert Rule over the presence or absence of one word in ExxonMobil. Please try to conduct a discussion on Talk:ExxonMobil rather than carrying it out via edit summaries. --Stormie 01:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I'll be reverting any re-insertions of the word "Controversial" unless someone steps up and provides a damn good argument on the talk page. --Stormie 03:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of campaign logos
With all due respect, I believe you're completely wrong to remove these from articles. But you say you don't want any discussion here, so tell me where to discuss it. Wasted Time R 17:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition to what I wrote on Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton about this, you should consider getting a consensus among the editors involved in the various candidate articles, before launching on this removal spree. Wasted Time R 18:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I support your removal of logos, and have in fact supported that by reversion on two pages. thank you for your time and work on this. ThuranX 20:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Milestone home runs
You may have an opinion on Featured list candidates/Milestone home runs by Barry Bonds.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a social network"
I don't believe that to be true. I do know it to be true that Dick Cheney has directly benefited from not only the Iraq war, but the Afghanistan war and several other wars before that.

oh...ehem...excuse me...that was a waste of your time.

Tom Laverty II 05:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(re tillich article)
Anastrophe,

In the Paul Tillich article, I attempted to explain a specific quote in greater detail. Since the original explanation that I added to is not cited either, shouldn't it also be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.148.241 (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Official MySpace page not reliable?
Please explain exactly why someone's official MySpace page is not reliable. In particular, please contrast such a page with someone's official webpage or biography in other media. I understand that MySpace is likely not reliable for many things but a blanket "it's never reliable for anything" is nonsensical. --ElKevbo 03:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing content from talk pages
Anastrophe: I noticed that in your edit history of this page that you removed content from it several times. Even though it is your talk page, that does not mean you are not free to remove content this way. Doing so is considered vandalism. I ask that you restore these edits in a prompt manner or I will have to report this vandalism activity. • Evan S  :: talk   §    email   §   photos • 22:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(EDITORS NOTE: user EvanS is mistaken about policy on this matter. Anastrophe 00:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

User:EvanS and sockpuppets
Hi Anastrophe. - just wondering if there's a particular reason that you didn't include User:CatsAreVeryCool in your WP:SSP for User:EvanS, as it looks pretty suspicious as well. Sarcasticidealist 00:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

cat
You recently archived cats talk page. Which is good. However you forgot to add to the archive you created. Also it should have been called Archive_8, not Archive_9. You need to create the Archive_8 page and move all the archived information onto it. Then you need to add that talkarchive template to the page before someone else starts posting or editing it. You will need to also delete Archive_9, you can do this by pasting this speedy deletion teplate at the top. The reason I have not done these things myself is because well, you know "Give a man a man to fish and he eats for that one day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for the rest of his life". JayKeaton (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Cite it or drop it????
Hi! I just discovered your strict policy. :-) I just want to say that I absolutely agree with you. Unsourced stuff is very annoying indeed and harms any kind of encyclopedia. Sadly there are too many users who don't give a f**** - sorry - about it. --Fromgermany (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * However users can't be expected to source every single sentence. Otherwise there would be about half a thousand sources on even the smallest of articles JayKeaton (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, but I think the general policy is that if a sentence is challenged by anyone, then it should be sourced. (There can be exceptions to this, perhaps, but I can't think of any.) Most sentences can go without challenge, of course. That said, I hate it when people remove unsourced statements without first asking for a citation and giving a reasonable amount of time for those citations to be found. (There are definitely times when this should be done, however. E.g., suspected WP:BLP violations.) Ben Hocking (talk 20:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The rules should be you have to put the {fact} tag on something before it can be deleted. Otherwise people would just chop and hack away at Wikipedia until there was nothing left. Adding citations to every edit is ridiculous, Wikipedia must get a million edits a day and a million citatation marks looks very messy.JayKeaton (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I personally prefer the cn tag, I agree with you about adding the tag first (with very few exceptions). Again, only those things that are tagged definitely need citations (although there are many other good places to add them as well), so I'm not advocating adding citations to every edit (and I don't think anybody else is, either). Ben Hocking (talk 20:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * interesting discussion on my otherwise 'off-limits' discussion page. ;^) but seriously - i believe that in the first few years of wikipedia, it was actually important for a lot of content to accumulate without being rigorously challenged - otherwise it'd have taken forever for WP to 'take off'. however, WP is now mature enough that all the unsourced crap can be relentlessly challenged and deleted. note well, i reference unsourced crap, not simply unsourced anything. there is stuff that's obvious crap - obvious at the level of the 'Reasonable Person' test. if a reasonable person sees obvious crap that's just been added to WP, then hit it. my approach of choice when rolling back is an edit summary that simply says "interesting change, but needs a cite". it's reasonably friendly/neutral, and gets the idea across in only six words. Anastrophe (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep!
 * By the way, I didn't intend to start a discussion on this page, really. I just wanted to state that I'm on your side, Anastrophe. ;-) --Fromgermany (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This really is one area that Wikipedia is not clear about. I personally think there should be a system where the citation tags and sources are hidden from view unless you turn them on. That way every single line of text can be cited without covering the page with a thousand little blue numbers, and you could then turn on the citation view and see all the little sources for each and every line of text. Well, I don't think that Anastrophe's talk page is the place for that, but it has been an interesting talk nonetheless ^_^ JayKeaton (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * by the way, on the outside chance anyone has wondered - the whole 'about me' section is merely an exercise in suggesting we should be wary of self-described experts who say 'take my word for it' here on wikipedia. sort of deltas with the discussion. Anastrophe (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean to avoid situations like Essjay again? I can't think of anything that better fits what you just mentioned. And quite right too, the Essjay thing really hurt Wikipedia in so many ways :'( JayKeaton (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Citing
I looked at the notes section on the Richard Kuklinski page for adding a footnote, didn't show me the footnotes and code. But please, don't be a hypocrite. There's lots of other stuff on that site and wikipedia in general which doesn't have citations, if you aren't willing to edit that too, you shouldn't edit mine. Why don't you go through everything today and see what else doesn't have a cite, not just give it to me because it's convenient when I was doing it the same time you were. 66.189.38.7 (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Blanking of Talk Pages
Hi Anastrophe,

Sorry about the tardiness of my reply, I have had an insanely busy week. Apologies if i came across overly strong in my message to you regarding the note left by EvanS, it was not my intention. I can understand perfectly how you saw the comment left by EvanS as a retaliatory attack, and it is very likely that it was. However, I would like to say that the statement that you made was very strong, and, if someone was so inclined, could easily have started a long and drawn out argument. It is difficult to maintain a cool head when attacked, this much I know from past experience, and I was merely trying to maintain the peace.

Apologies again, Urbane  (Talk)   (Contributions)  17:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Your recent WP:AIV report
Thank you for making a report on Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again.

Kind regards, Anthøny  17:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

try taking yourself less seriously.

you seem to be quite sure about what wikipedia is and isn't..

maybe you could do with health dose of self scepticism. also don't bite newbies. not that i am one.I dont know what&#39;s going on (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Your Full House edits
You are quite egotistical and obviously on a bit of a power trip. Have you even watched Full House? Fans of the show would know during the early years he was an exterminator and it was clear to adults in the subtext he was dealing drugs (Does this not fit into character of a reforming rock star?). However I'm sure you don't need to research before you delete anything that doesn't fit into your world view. Well thanks for proving that wikipedia does not work because the information simply has to fit in with the ideology of the admins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.146.2 (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Anastrophe. is not an admin. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 14:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please make your talk posts legible
Please use your shift key and puctuate properly. Your talk page messages, such as at Talk:Cat, are very difficult to read, and this difficulty is a waste of other editors' time (and it makes it look like your messages are being posted by a child, so to be honest many editors are probably either ignoring them or mostly discouting your views as unimportant or immature). In response to your (correct, if a big haughty) banner up top here, Wikipedia is not a textmessaging cell phone or an IM client either, it is an encyclopedia. :-) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 14:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * cite me a wikipedia policy or guideline that states that i must capitalize my sentences or personal pronouns on talk pages, then your unsolicited comments will have some actual substance. otherwise, please find more constructive use of your time here. wikipedia is not an IM or text messaging system, quite correct. talk pages are not encyclopedia articles. you will not find a single instance where my edits of actual encyclopedia articles are less than appropriate. we are here to edit an encyclopedia, not bitch about other user's style on talk pages. i don't recall ever having interacted with you in any manner, why do you feel it appropriate to castigate me as you have? Please try to be more civil. Anastrophe (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? I *asked you politely, if rather formally*, and even included a smiley to make sure that you understood that I was being constructively critical, to please use the shift key and punctuation characters on talk pages so that your posts can actually be read without giving everyone else a headache trying to parse what you're writing, and gave you more than one reason why.  This has nothing to do with Wikipedia policies; I did not visit your talk page to hurl WP:XYZ, WP:ABC alphabet soup at you, but to make a simple request, the honoring of which will benefit not only readers of your posts but you as well.  There is no "castigation" or "bitching", nor have I been incivil, which is more than I can say about your response.  Please do not be so defensive and assume good faith – just because someone has visited your talk page for reasons other than to give you a barnstar does not mean they are your enemy. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 15:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * PS: You needn't fork the discussion by replying at a new thread on my talk page; like most editors, I watchlist for a while any user talk pages I post things to and expect a response on. :-) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 16:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * PPS: I feel it is appropriate to be constructively critical in this case, because you are doing something that makes it onerous for other editors to even follow what you are saying. This is no different from any other problem editing pattern at talk pages, like not using edit summaries, not signing posts, not indenting posts, making one's posts IN SCREAMING ALL-CAPS, etc., etc.  It is a style issue, in a sense, but it goes beyond that, and is not the same as picking on someone's spelling or grammar, which is comparable to picking on someone's intelligence, English-language fluency or other personal issue.  You are clearly intelligent enough to punctuate and capitalize correctly (I'm well aware that your article edits are fine in this regard), so no slight of any kind was intended. Simply a request to take more care in talk page post formatting (partly for your own sake). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 16:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish, I think you're being unnecessarily broad in your criticism. It may well be that other editors have a hard time with Anastrophe's talk page posts, but you it seems as if you were talking mainly for yourself. Had you broached it that way you might have gotten a more positive response.


 * I have interacted with this user on several occasions, and to be honest had never even noticed his capitalization style. I find his posts understandable, and helpful, too. Would that more users were as helpful as he is. Jeffpw (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, no personal slight was intended, and I'm quite aware of Anastrophe's article editing skills, and that the reasoning behind what he posts on talk pages is sound, and so forth; it was not a matter of me not liking him or thinking him unintelligent, or anything of that sort. I thought that was clear. I do get your point, but I don't think I'm a magical snowflake; if something this basic is bugging me, the odds are very high that it is bugging others. But... I am no psychic, so of course I cannot really speak for them, and shouldn't have phrased it that way. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 01:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(thanks for your comments jeffpw. following composed previously, too much activity on my lowly talk page!)
 * 1. it is impolite (uncivil) to suggest that another editor's talk page posts appear to be "posted by a child" - that's a personal attack, and no editor would appreciate that. can you understand that? 2. you are not in a position to make any claims about what other editors may or may not think of my posts ("many editors are probably either ignoring them or mostly [sic]discouting your views as unimportant or immature"). 2a. again, claiming that my posts are "giving everyone else a headache" is unsupportable - you are claiming a sort of consensus, but i'd bet folding money you've never, ever communicated with another editor on this matter...am i right? 3. smiley's are a cop-out - a way to say impolite, uncivil things, then pretend they were not. 4. your snide, sarcastic comment above about barnstars is further uncivil. please stop playing games. the tenor and content of your critique of my talk-page style is unwelcome, uncivil, unsolicited, and not appreciated. please stop harrassing me over what amounts to your particular predilections and preferences regarding talk page style. Anastrophe (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Replying having noted that you have a further response below, so I needn't go into everything here. 1. I said that it is very likely that some other editors will assume that your posts were written by a child, because kids write like that a lot more than adults do (esp. with the rise of texting and IM, lol roflmao brb u kno wt i mean. Definitely not intended as a personal attack.  More akin to seeing someone with their zipper down and letting them know, rather than letting them walk around all day like that. In your case you seem to be a "but I like the cool breeze" person. Heh. 2. Sure, I don't have a poll demonstrating numbers; as Jeffpw also said and I admitted, I can't really speak for anyone but myself. 3. I'm sorry that you took so much offense at this. It was not my intent. 4. I am not playing games or being snide; I was trying to indicate that you appeared (to me) to be overreacting, without just coming out and saying "you're overreacting, dammit!", since that might seem like an attack, too. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 01:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * followup, since above was written before your PPS. while i appreciate that your intent was constructive, your delivery was severely lacking. had your initial engagement had a friendlier tenor (see 1, above), it might have been received better. i am aware that i suffer from 'lazy caps'. in the continuum of issues people have in posting, i'd submit that lazy caps are deep near the bottom of 'offenses' worth troubling about. vandalism, ALL CAPS, poor grammar, misspellings, these things so completely overwhelm many talk pages that i doubt many editors give a second thought to my shortcoming. that said, yes, i should work on my lazy caps. trust me, i've been trying to overcome it for the better part of the last three years. somehow, i'm always able to post appropriately in the encyclopedia itself, and other formal venues. in time, perhaps i'll be cured of this minor dis-ease. until then, perhaps this matter can be considered closed, and we can move on to more productive endeavors. peace-out, as the kids say. Anastrophe (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delivery: Point conceded. Mea culpa. Sometimes I get things like this right, and sometimes they just backfire. I don't see lazy caps as an "offense", just something that makes it harder to read and follow your posts. And yeah, it's closed to me.  I did not want to have a big debate, nor to totally piss you off or anything. D'oh. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 01:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks. matter closed. i wouldn't say i was totally pissed off, more just annoyed, and the fact i hadn't had but three sips of my morning coffee when i started reading it probably factored into it....Anastrophe (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Been there! Show me the hot black stuff! —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 11:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Dubya
Hello, would you mind checking the message I left on Talk:George W. Bush on the change? I know the memory could be wrong but there is a more important note there on the talk page. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee Merge Proposal
Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here [] Jmegill (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

random commentary!
Just a quick question as to why you keep removing information in the relationship section regarding Cheryl Burke and Matthew Lawrence. The information is referenced and they are a couple and connected with the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woobears (talk • contribs) 05:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Westroads Mall massacre
I left a point about the 'shooter->perpetrator' change you made on the talk page of that article. Cheers, Master of Puppets Care to share?  07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

more random
I tend to agree as a general rule - this is a bit too trivial to go on a discussion page really though. Six (in most contexts) is simply NOT "many". In the case of an ancient and continuing institution like the Papacy six Popes of a particular "reign name" is certainly not many. If you really prefer "many" to several" I certainly can't be bothered arguing any more, but it is a shame to abuse the English language. What about being precise, and just saying "six". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundofmusicals (talk • contribs) 09:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. New to this site. Instead of sending notes, could you please be a little nice and helpful in helping a newbie learn wikipedia instead of being nasty? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.202.179 (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if you helped people understand the use of wikipedia and how to code things this site would be a little better. Thanks for your time and concern in my use of wikipedia. Have a wonderful Holiday Season and God Bless You! (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:24.90.233.61
I replied you there :). I am quite sure this is a residential IP, and if it is shared, it is among people under the same roof. Given the contributions, I don't think the IP was ever shared. -- lucasbfr talk 23:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

on the sunnyside, queens article, you took off my edit. I'm pretty new to wikipedia, so could you cite it for me? It even says on the Raising Helen movie article that it was shot in the same streets as spider-man. thanx--Dlo2012 (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Barry Bonds article...
Hello, Anastrophe. Long time, no talk.

I just wanted to let you know that you've done a great job with the Barry Bonds article and I can't think of a better Wiki User to keep that page in check than you.

Take care. TabascoMan77 (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm all for burying the hatchet, brother. I had revisted the article you wrote, trying to get current info on his trial because I consider Wikipedia to be fair and more accurate than the news sources. After reading it, I remembered that you were one of the main contributors to the page and I just wanted you to know that you had done a fine job keeping away vandals (I have had more than my fair share with Marc Ecko and "Miami Vice" for some reason) and keeping the article fair and balanced. I wish I had more time to do it. But, great job and I wish you happy holidays, brother. Take care. TabascoMan77 (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

re User:Indiejade report at AIV
This matter had been previously bought up at WP:ANI here and there was no conclusion. I note that Indiejade has been blocked for a day, but seems likely to return to their habits upon return. I suggest another post to ANI to attempt to get a concensus - providing one doesn't already exist at the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Vassar's Colors
I'd just like to make you aware of the discussion page on Vassar about their colors. They are rose and pewter, though maroon is sometimes used on merchandise (though it is not the official color) and when it was changed, the individual was marked by you for vandalism, which is absurd. Please check your facts next time before making reckless, ignorant, and simply wrong citations of vandalism.

popular culture
yes i will add one. gorespace - haha! Happyme22 (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * done. Happyme22 (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

'Person' and 'they' do not agree in number
Your edit on Suggestibility went a bit too far. 'He or she' is awkward, but not incorrect grammatically. Person -> they is incorrect grammatically. The best way to go is make it plural (people). Per your mantra: http://www.apa.udel.edu/apa/publications/texts/nonsexist.html 24.201.75.18 (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Anastrophe.! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. βcommand 03:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)