User talk:Anastrophe/Archive 2008-2009

Note left on your talk page
A user recently left a note on your userpage which seemed to have been intended for your talk page. I reverted it as vandalism, but just wanted to tell you here in case you want to read it. Thanks! Terriertalk 16:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You can read it here. DiligentTerrier[[User:Diligent Terrier|talk 16:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you have a problem with that statement? This is not vandalism, many other articles have references to Pop Culture, and how people are viewed in culture. I too am a Michael Bolton fan and I see no problems with this statement, it is all in good fun, and if i find any more references to him in pop culture I will add them too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvn1982 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

re cacycle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cacycle/wikEd_installation

RE: hello, you appear to be using a script of one sort or another based on the WL in your edit summaries to the above named page. the problem is, the page doesn't exist. can you direct me to where this script is discussed? thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC

Thank you
For figuring out how to reference Thomas.gov directly and cleaning up my reference to the 2007 legislation - it was beyond my understanding. Hopefully I am learning something with all of the editorial assistance I am receiving. (smile) Larry Escientist (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

2A question
Check the talk page of that article. The precise neutral wording of that lede section was very carefully negotiated developed through discussions on the talk page consensus. My rational is that the talk page negotiations should be respected. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

??
With all due respect, how do you not know that I merely added those names, only to cite sources at a later point in time. It is foolish to remove them. The list should be expanded and therefore, you should be looking to add sources for such names, as I was interrupted and probably won't come back to it until later. I didn't spend 30 minutes writing names on there so you could swipe them off without taking this into consideration... 21:11, 21 January 2008 jkaharper

undo
You should read Help:Reverting, Revert only when necessary, WP:RSUE, WP:AN/3RR Laurusnobilis (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR
Hi, you were reported for two 3RR violations on Kaiser Permanente and Universal health care. It wasn't clear that you had violated the policy, so I'm not issuing a block this time, but you had certainly come close. It's not a good idea to keep brushing up against the policy in this way. You might want to review it at WP:3RR, and please note that it's not an electric fence -- blocks can be issued for too much reverting even if there's no policy violation. Cheers, SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If it's unsourced criticism about a living person, you can ignore the 3RR rule, but you should also contact an admin so that the issue gets sorted, rather than continuing to revert. About anything else, add a tag after the material, and wait a reasonable time, then remove it. If it keeps getting restored, put up an article RfC. Things usually get sorted if there are enough eyes on the situation.  SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't you dare erase my contributions ever again.
 Wik idea  00:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your actions are uncivil, and I repeat, don't you dare erase my contributions ever again. And don't patronise me with your twisting of policy. It is uncivil to delete people's contributions. I am telling you straight and clear, do not do it. You have some real nerve to think you are able to then criticise me for telling you off. I do not wish to hear any more from you.  Wik idea  01:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Alert noted
Your alert on user Wikidea has been noted. Thankyou for using Wikiquette_alerts--mitrebox (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The implementation of any WPolicy is always tricky. The strictest following of any one policy gives generally poor results. I've found that comment removing (except when done to revert spam or vand) almost invariably leads to escalation. When done by anyone other than an admin, it often has negative consequences for the well intentioned editor. I encourage you to find balance amongst the WPolcies. --mitrebox (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

reply
Responding to your question. I was answering your question to me here, remember that? I hope that you can WP:AGF, thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning
I view your revert as a part of an ongoing edit war. Please review the WP:3RR policy again, thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

About me
Please clarify who you are and eliminate the confusion. Are you in the witness protection program? Are you not a person but a group account? Group accounts are strongly discouraged. 199.125.109.98 (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

US Gasoline prices
I take it you have never been to California? 199.125.109.98 (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User pages
WP:User page "Others may also edit your user page." 199.125.109.98 (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Future enegy development

 * um does this user User:199.125.109.98 have the authority to merge articles?


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Future_energy_development&diff=next&oldid=187982549
 * just wondering where the page went?--Sparkygravity (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)--Sparkygravity (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Janet Reno
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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Hqb (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not make reports to WP:AIV for content disputes. AIV is for reporting vandalism. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If he continues, might I suggest adding a note at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard? - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You are warned that further edits to Janet Reno will make you in violation of the three revert rule. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Civility
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Civility
Then you should perhaps review how you approach other people, and not act like an a-hole when you speak. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

suggestion
If you format the citation and fact templates on your userpage like the following, you won't have to update them manually:

returns as:

(Won't work with , but if you indent each line with one space instead, the date templates will still work and transclude and you will get the same visual output as with   .)

And

returns as:

(Same as above: doesn't work with , but by indenting it, you can achieve the same visual output and the templates still transclude.)

Regards, User:Dorftrottel 12:14, February 3, 2008
 * You're welcome. I just like to fiddle with wikicode and frequently use the citation templates myself. User:Dorftrottel 22:16, February 3, 2008

Cat - RFC
Just to let you know that I have asked for an Article RFC on Cat. This is due to the continuing disagreement over the photo to use in the infobox. Mjroots (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

((moved following section here - archives really are not to be edited by others, and had i not noticed it in my watchlist, i'd never have even known about it))

Advert tag
Hi Anastrophe! I have been watching your edits, since they are very informative to me and I’m learning lots of details related to Wikipedia editing.

I know for sure that you are aware of the NPOV Wikipedia policy, however, I would like to cite section of the policy to point something. ''The advertisement tag is based on the fact that article should be written on a neutral point of view. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Therefore, debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.''

I’m planning to revise the main article of Miss Earth, which include the removal of the advert tag. In ligt of the above Wikipedia policy, I would like to ask you, what are the current statements or sections in the Miss Earth article with advertisement in nature? I’m asking you this as a courtesy, since you were the one who put the advert tag late last year; since then, the article has been into several edits, eliminating the advertisement statements, as reflected in the article contents and history (before and current). If there are advertisement remnants, please let me know, so we can come up into win-win solution. Thanks.--Richie Campbell (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * i'll review the article when i get a chance. likely most/all of the advertising is gone, though the tone still tends to be overly laudatory towards the pageant. Anastrophe (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the helpful tip that shared in the discussion page of Miss Earth. I really appreciate it. If ever you notice any other areas of improvement or difficulties that I have in editing, please do hop into it, since i'm always open into suggestions. Anyway, I'm looking forward to your review in the Miss Earth article, when you get a chance.--Richie Campbell (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please vote!
Hi! Please join us here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lianga13#Bingo.21

Thank so much!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

section break
Yeah fine, Barack Hussein Obama it is. I don't give a damn at this point. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Chelsea Clinton
If you object to one word in a paragraph, edit that one word. Don't delete an entire paragraph and belch 'vandalism' as a justification; that sort of wantonly excessive deletion is far closer to any definition of vandalism than disagreement about what euphemism to use for a sexual relationship. And don't swear at other editors. Check out WP:CIVIL.Fatswaller (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you think this article is OK?
Please take your look at new article created by Lianga13 and its pic. Is that OK?

Dick Cheney
If you take the time to wait before reverting my work, you will see a note I have just put in the Rfc section that I have asked you to restore the reference links that I so painstakingly put in the orginal insert. You changed the format and I am now unable to restore the references so that these link to the references section in the main article. Please can you do this for me. Ivankinsman (talk) 09:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Barry Bonds
I have fixed the image to adhere to policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 23:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

George W. Bush
How is this edit by vandalism? - auburn pilot  talk  15:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
You have been granted with rollback permission. For more information, please refer to this page. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 13:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Needing your opinion
I need your opinion and expertise regarding my comment, check it here.--Richie Campbell (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

new topic
Dear Anastrophe, Last night you deleted my editing additions to the Angel page, both under pictures and under other religions. I need your help adding this or some of this to the appropriate Wikipedia pages. I have never edited on Wikipedia. Although you may not know of this, the transcripts of their messages (called readings) have been accepted as legitimate prophetic utterances and Messianic messages by the top expert in the U.S.A., Dr. Ed Wright, head of the Department of Judaic Studies at the University of Arizona. Dr. Wright told me that if I do nothing else with my life, collecting and archiving this material is the most important thing I could do. Dr. Wright is keeping a CD sets of the archives in his office at the University. In addition, the complete archives of their words titled, A New Book with Wings, has been accepted at the University of Arizona in Special Collections, and is also in circulation at the main library there. Independently, the University's main religious studies librarian, Karen Tallman, welcomed the readings for the University Main Library and enthusiastically read all 19 years of the transcripts. She recommended they be placed in Special Collections for their safety. Another archived two-volume set was welcomed to be kept in the Reading Room of the famous Association of Research and Enlightenment in Virginia Beach, Virginia, U.S.A. Before his death in 2000, Ray Elkins of Globe, Arizona, the instrument or prophet through who the spiritual messengers of God spoke from April 3, 1970, to August 29, 1989, asked me to be archivist of the material. I am also Archivist and Publications Secretary on the Board of Directors of the Association of Universal Philosophy, which he and the spiritual messengers of God formed in 1974. You may also find the archives at http://www.angelfire.com/in4/aup_messiah. Here are some quotes from Aka, the spiritual messengers of God, which may better help you understand:

On April 6, 1970, the spiritual messengers of God were asked: "Can you tell us who you are?" “My name is Aka (Atka?).” [Editor's note: the name was not one we would know how to spell, and so, when writing it down for the transcripts, at first it as decided it would be spelled, "Odka," but later, we changed it to "Aka."]

April 7, 1970: “Ye soul shall bind as one, as did Christ, who was sent not to change, but to bring and prove what had been before. In this time, in the turmoil of man, ye shall see once again, only in a different way, in a different plane, of Christ, of God, our Lord, our Father.” [See John, chapter 17, and The Revelation of John.

April 20, 1970, Aka said, “We are not great. We are but messengers of your Father, your God.”

July 15, 1970, the spiritual messengers of God said, “We have made ourselves known to you as our Father has suggested, for we call, as thy would call it, ourselves, Aka. “Think thee of the first of the name, Aka, and thy would think of the Almighty. Think of the second of the name and thy would think of the word, karmic. Think of the last of the name and thy would think of the records, the records, which are kept from the beginning, of all things, of all knowledge which man was born and born again. This knowledge, as our Father gives us permission, we should give of thee. We give this knowledge so that man, all of man, would know of the love of our Father -- and by knowing of the love our Father has to give, of the tears our Father sheds, that all man of all religions should come to our Father, together in peace and love....” “Then, it does not matter how you spell of this. But if all of you could agree upon this one simple thing, then you have taken one step closer to our Father....” “And this, we would say, for some time, for, there shall be the time; this is why we urge that this message that we have given thee be taken to all living souls of your earth.”

May 14, 1971, they said: “Our coming was not meant to cause fear or confusion in thee. Our coming was for the preparation for the coming of the Messiah.” Aka explained, May 4, 1973, “We come as the peacemakers. Fear not that thy should feel our presence. Open thy hearts that we may enter, and thy days of anguish shall be over, for we shall fill thy cup – and therefore, a Rose shall grow without thorns.”[Note: a Rose without thorns is a symbol for the preparation or the coming of the Messiah.] July 15, 1970, they said: “We give this knowledge so that man, all of man, would know of the love of our Father, and by knowing of the love our Father has to give, of the tears our Father sheds, that all of men of all religions should come to our Father together in peace and love.” March 3, 1972: “And you say to us, ‘What are these who speak in this manner? Are they angels? Are they archangels?’ “And we should say unto thee, these are words of your own. But we should answer in this manner. We stand in pure light before our Father and you. We have found it necessary to speak in your tongue, of your language.”

June 11, 1972: “Think not that we of the thirteen should sit in judgement, for we are not here for that purpose. We are here to prepare the minds of men for the time that the Messiah should come upon your earth and to fulfill the words that were spoken by our Lord when he did promise unto thee a thousand years of peace.” On December 9, 1972, my question was read: “Judy...asks if you are the same messenger as the one who came to Joseph Smith who began the Mormon faith?” They answered me as they made their presence known: “We are many. We have come unto many throughout the time of times. For where we dwell there is no time. And where we dwell there is no form. We came upon the earth, this you should call of your home, in the beginning. “For that of myself, for I am soul Ray, and soul Ray is I. And that his karma should be no more -- for that that he was in the beginning, so was I. Yet, as life was given into his body, we were allowed to enter. “For both of the prophets thy should ask about are One of the same. Yet, each shall do that which they were placed upon the earth to do, for they are but instruments of our Father. “And from the beginning and through to the ending is but of the same – for ‘life to life, as dust to dust.’ For does not a wise God place His children upon the earth to hunt and feed that of His kind?” [Note: see April 3, 1970, reading, and Genesis.] “Thy have other questions, ask.” “One moment, Aka.” (Bob whispers to his wife, an anthropologist whose speciality is birds of the Southwest, “Would you ask the question?”) She asks, “Aka, are you also speaking of Nezahuacoytl?” [Note: Quetzacoatl was the feathered, serpent god of the Aztec and Toltec cultures. Some think he was the prophet that came before the Messiah who is said to have walked in the Americas by many Indian peoples and by the Mormon faith.] “Yes, we see thy need. And we speak of the same. “And glory be the name of the Lord.” On December 15, 1972, the spiritual messengers of God spoke to some of the people gathered, or others who’d been asking God in prayer: “You have questions within your mind of the book of Revelations and the timing we have given unto you. We should repeat again, for the wise to hear, that only our Father knows of the last days. But the beginning has already begun. Your Father has promised unto you a new heaven and a new earth, and this promise shall become complete within each person, within each soul that dwells and becomes part of our Father’s love for all.” I (Judy) had begun to read various writings, trying to comprehend who was speaking. Some phrases seemed to describe this presence I felt as I sat before them, and listened to these who are far greater than man speak. They felt so holy, so close to God. And they were more vast than I could understand. “Judy asks, ‘Are you, or could you tell us about, the creative Elohim of God? And are you the seven spirits which evolved from Tao great? What does it mean in the Aquarian Gospel that, ‘man’s soul lives within the seven breath of Tao great?’” “We should answer in this manner. “Within our council lies the seven spirits of our Father. “And as thy have asked of Tao great, our Lord sent those forth unto the universe, as His messengers and as His tools and instruments, that we should do His work. “In some places we have built whole universes, in others, but small souls. Yet, all was mighty in the eyes of our Father. For as we have said before, we stand as close to our Father as His eyes, His ears and His heart; yet, we do so in humble reverence of our holy Father....” Before they departed that evening, the spiritual messengers of God spoke to all of us in these words. “But we should leave you with this message. Now is the time of the Cherub. For all who are wise to hear, let them hear. For once again the star of Bethlehem shall burn in your heavens. Give joy and reverence unto all mankind, for the birth of the new Messiah is at hand.”

December 29, 1972, the spiritual messengers of God said: "Within your mind is the name of the one known as Jesus, and that of the preparation for the entry of those who have reached the Christ state into this one. As we have said before, there are many who have reached the Christ state. And through the combination of these shall be the new Messiah. "You asked that he should come walking from the clouds? And we shall answer your question in this manner. When he should first appear unto the Jewish people, and they shall see him first, he shall be standing upon a cloud. And the Jewish nation in their despair shall kneel before him. This was meant so that that that had been written should be fulfilled. And as we have said before, written upon the clouds, written upon the sky, our Father shall make known of this entry in this way." [See Acts 1:6-11, The Revelation of John, 7:2-12, chapter 10, 14:1-5, 14:14-16, 15:2-4, 19:1-16, 21:1-7, 22-27, 22:1-7, Zechariah, chapters 12-14.] "But he should come unto the body form, for is it not written also that that that does not know of earth can not know of heaven? And those who do not know of heaven can not know of earth? For he should come to lead you through your thousand years of peace upon your earth." [See John 3:1-21 and The Revelation, chapters 19-22.] "The spirit was left that it may flow through all mankind. As we have said before, we have come but for one purpose, and that is for the preparation for the coming of the Messiah. And we say unto you, all of you, open your door that we might enter, and therefore, there can be a place prepared within each of you for his coming. [See John 14:1-5, 14:15-26, 15:26-27, 16:7-15, 16:19-24, and chapter 17.] "But from a mother’s womb, so shall he be born. Look within your book of Revelation, and you shall see of the same." [See The Revelation of John, chapter 12.] "But hark unto these words. Our Father has written only upon the Tablets. Man has written upon your pages and your paper; therefore, many things have been extracted from, taken away from that that inspired the men in the beginning to write of the same, and some has been added to by others. We have come, not to change the Laws, but to fulfill the prophecies of the same. We have come not to change that that was given within Moses’ time. We have come not to change that that was given unto Isaiah. We have come not to change that that was given, and the gift that was given, in the one known as Jesus. But hark unto these words. We have come for this time. We have come from those who should make their entry. We have come from those who did say unto our Father, 'Send those who know You best to prepare a way for our coming, that our Father’s words should not be misinterpreted.'"[See John 14:15-26, 15:26-27, 16:7-15, and 16:19-24.]

February 16, 1918: "And we say unto you, as we ask permission to answer questions, we, of the Council, are not great. That that you know as Jesus Christ is now upon your Earth in body, and so is the body containing Buddha, Muhammad, for in this, of the Messiah, contains the spirit of the Lord, God, and those He has sent unto you. His first begotten son now awaits his time upon the Earth. We are here but for one purpose, and that is the preparation for His kingdom. The One who we must ask permission from in answering questions that we are not normally allowed to answer is the Father, or God, as you would know. We say unto you, glory be the name of the Lord, our God. Glory be the name of His children."

Anastrophe, if I have not properly referenced these quotes and scriptural references, please tell me how, if this is why you rejected the spiritual messengers of God. Perhaps you would also like to confer with your most educated scholars in prophets and Messianic messages too? I can attest to the presence and reality of these messengers of God also, if you would like some information from me of knowing them for my past 27 years. Many thousands of people from all faiths have been healed or given personal guidance in answer to prayers as well. Ray did not want Aka's work to become another denomination or religion, which is why he called the building he built in 1982 simply, a church to God, a place for people to gather, if they wish. But most live in other cities or countries. The messengers once called their knowledge, the spiritual philosophy of God, but expanded it for all others as, universal philosophy. It is from God and the eternal, through the universes and galaxies beyond galaxies, that they enter into time to hover above the Earth, to enter into man each time to speak. I had included a photo I took with my 35 mm Nikormat of the rays coming from above and entering into the body of a man as they spoke in 1973, which I will share if you wish.

Thank you for consideration of inclusion of Universal Philosophy or Aka, spiritual messengers of God, in Wikipedia. I await your answer and your help.

Sincerely, Judy Ross AUP Archivist aup@earthlink.net

P.S. The story of how I first met these spiritual messengers of God can be read at http://www.angelfire.com/in4/aup_messiah/judys_story.html, if you need further testimony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UniversalPhilosophy (talk • contribs) 20:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Image I added

 * i don't see how it can be viewed as vandalism, but i have reverted it again, since the statue is of a person who is not listed on that page. Anastrophe (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, maybe he is. He is known under countless of names. I thought that he was linked to the page under the name Lord Donia which is a redirect to the person of which the statue belongs which I added (Pier Gerlofs Donia). He was a bisexual hsitorical person and famous enough to have his picture on the page. The edit I made was in no way to be considered vandalism. Angela from the Blue (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Silly!
If you'd read my page, you would have seen my discussion with the other editor :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Smile


DiligentTerrier[[User:Diligent Terrier|talksign here has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

your recent ref
Regarding this diff, could you please point me to the passage in that article that mentions 'arms' 'guns' or 'gun politics'? The ref that you deleted pertained more closely to modern 'gun politics' I think. Remember the topic of the article is about modern 'gun politics', not a construct of the 'founders' logic long ago. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Where else should an editor ask a direct question to another editor but on their talk page?
Sorry, my question was intended to directly ask you a question about an edit that you individually made. I did not intend to ask a general question directed all editors. You took more than a small liberty to repost my words intended for you on that article talk page, (which happens to be OK with me, but it would have be nice to ask me first). Where else should an editor ask a direct question to another editor but on their talk page? SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

question
Actually, I was asking you, what passage you were reading in that article. I was not asking all editors, what passage you were reading. You, by the way, did not answer that question here when you instead answered my question by asking a question instead of giving an answer. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

RE: Saul Tillich, Paul Tillich
Your [AIV report] is well-intentioned, but that editor's actions are not vandalism. Generally, vandalism is the continued disruption of an article without responding to warnings or queries, whether you're spamming or vandalizing. This editor is, instead, pushing a WP:POV and edit warring. The appropriate course of action would be to report him to WP:AN3. I'll give him a final warning to see if that helps. Cheers, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! ☺  06:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Cheers! Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! ☺  06:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Cybill Shepherd
All my additions to the Cybil Shepherd article are direct quotes from her autobiography 'Cybil Disobedience'. GWP (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Cybil Shepherd
I've made adjustments to the quotation marks in the text but given that my submissions were clearly under a sub-heading stating that it was information from her autobiography with several previous insertions, your action in wholescale deleting is open to question. GWP (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Shepherd
Cool, you can be assured of my good faith as i am literally going through the autobiography before throwing it out and putting on anything which i feel is relevant. I'm quite open to this being fact-checked by others with the autobiography and perhaps even being whittled down over time or incorporated into the main article. Kind regards GWP (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Serial Vandals
I was just commenting today about how often Chelsea's page is vandalized...then I saw your comment about serial vandals...I share your frustration.

Thanks for your vigilance.

Isaacsf (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references.

As to your fallacious claim that my interpretation of WP:V is " Unreasonably restrictive" I would like to point you to the following quote from Jimmy Wales, featured prominently in WP:V:

I would suggest that it is YOU who are taking an unreasonably lenient view of WP:V. Kindly cease and desist reverting until you are familiar with the relevant policy. HrafnTalkStalk 17:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia police
OK, I have to admit I got a good laugh out of this comment and your reply! - Diligent<span Terrier 18:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC
I've started drafting a user conduct RfC that you might be interested in here. There's a lot of evidence to sift through and present, so I think it will take awhile to get it put together. If you'd like to participate, please feel free to do so. Cla68 (talk) 06:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC) please remove item 9 from the sandbox draft. i'm not a party to this matter. Anastrophe (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * done. Cla68 (talk) 07:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you recently edited out my edition to the Christopher McCandless article. I was simply putting the correct information out there so others could take it and put it into wikipedia language or whatever you wanna call it. I think it is horrible that his death on Wikipedia makes him look like an embassal. Where he actually just ate a part of the plant that was moldy. He did not mistake it. If you ever read the book, Into the Wild, you would be informed of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccerdudelevi (talk • contribs) 20:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks for defending my user page. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Gun politics in the United States
At requests for page protection, you made a comment that the page should not be protected. If you could explain further why you believe this, with relevant diffs, on my talk page, I'll take a look. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Block
Hey there, if you're an admin can you block Trojancowboy, who only seems interested in vandalism? Freestyle-69 (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

head off an edit war
Could we please work out our differences without edit warring? That way we can avoid the need for page protection. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Reporting yourself
You can always undo your own fourth revert. They pretty much don't block people who undo their own fourth reverts after realizing they accidentally reverted more than three times per day. :) Urzatron (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm a non-admin helper at the 3RR noticeboard. Very good of you to report yourself. It's nice to see that sort of honesty. Dank je wel. However, two consecutive edits by the same person count as one edit for purposes of 3RR, and you have to have 4 reverts in a 24-hour period to violate 3RR.  You had only (what counted as) 3 edits, so even if they were all reverts, they wouldn't be a violation. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I probably used the wrong pronoun. I really only know a very tiny bit of Dutch (or Flemish or whatever). ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Anastophe
I recently received your comment calling my edit unvarified and clearly of my opinion because it wasnt cited. I just wanted you to know first of all, that it isnt simply my opinion, it is common public knowledge here in the United States, also, I added a citation to both my ExxonMobile Edit, and my Chevron edit. I hope these are to your liking, and in the future pleaee consider that some things, such as large scale profit critism is common knowledge to those living in the country in which the problem is originating. Also that in the case of the Chevron page, a citation was listed at a later part of the article, however not at the summary sentence that was present at the top of the page, therefore it was still cited, just in a different area. Please consider these points in the future. I appreciate your edit. Have a great day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NRAPA33 (talk • contribs)

Riefenstahl‎ drawing
Only to let you know, the drawing was uploaded in a very low resolution form by someone at a time when there was no free or fair use image available (I in turn smoothed and converted it into an SVG). When a photo showed up, whoever added the photo moved the drawing down to another section rather than deleting it. I don't think the drawing was ever put into the article to showcase any artist's work. No worries at all about deleting it though. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Good Evening again to you
Within the Chevron article, I added the section about their new policy and how they are working to become more environmentally friendly and cited the statement using the University of Pittsburgh as a source. Therefore, being that it is properly citd, you should allow it to remain up, as it follows all rules and is protected under the wikipedia policy. Please let it alone! thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by NRAPA33 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

mr anastrophe
After reading your response, I looked into the reliability of my source. Please review the following taken straight from the policies set forth by the website:

Scholarship Many Wikipedia articles rely upon source material created by scientists, scholars, and researchers. This is usually considered reliable, although some material may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative theories. Wikipedia articles should strive to cover all major and significant-minority scholarly interpretations on topics for which scholarly sources exist, and all major and significant-minority views that have been published in other reliable sources, as appropriate.

Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals. Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are welcomed. Items that are signed are preferable to unsigned articles. In science, single studies are usually considered tentative evidence that can change in the light of further scientific research. How reliable a single study is considered depends on the field, with studies relating to very complex and not entirely-understood fields, such as medicine, being less definitive. If single studies in such fields are used, care should be taken to respect their limits, and not to give undue weight to their results. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews, which combine the results of multiple studies, are preferred (where they exist). Peer reviewed scientific journals differ in their standards. Some court controversy, and some have even been created for the specific purpose of promoting fringe theories that depart significantly from the mainstream views in their field. Many of these have been created or sponsored by advocacy groups. Such journals are not reliable sources for anything beyond the views of the minority positions they are associated with.

After reading this, it is apparent that as this article is hosted by a University and has been compiled by several scholars, it has been vetted by the scholoarly community and has been regarded as reliable, therefore making this source a reliable source. Also this is not a single study. I challenge you to google Chevron's evironmental friendliness and you will see that there is an overwhelming amount of information to support the source. This is not a scientific journal, and the university is not advocacy group, also it is not a minority opinion, it is factual evidence. Therefore all of this accounted for, it is indeed a reliable source and the information displayed has been proven to be factual and reliable. Don't try to throw codes at me, I will read into it. Also I feel as though I must remind you tht this is not a competition, you need to accept the fact that the sources are out there, and stop distroying every source I find. What I am trying to do is get the truth out about how some of these companies are beginning to see the light and that they are moving toward a better future. I respectfully ask you to stop challenging my sources, they do indeed meet the guidelines, and stop comming up with bogus excuses to manipulate what the public can be exposed to, the people deserve to know the truth! Thank You.

--NRAPA33 (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry
I do appologize, but I'm afraid I am unaware of how to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NRAPA33 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Read before reverting, please
Read the article talk page. I've read the study - I have SpringerLink access. Its methodology is hopelessly broken - it's based on a self-selected sample, plus a self-selected sample of a self-selected sample. There is no statistical validity to it and using it to infer anything about gays and lesbians as a whole is misleading at best, intentionally deceptive at worst. If you want me to explain further here, I will. FCYTravis (talk) 07:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Block request declined
Thank you for your message on my talk page. To answer your question, yes, warnings are generally restarted each month at level one and increase in severity if the editor persists in vandalizing. While the duration of blocks will often increase each time an editor is blocked, that does not however mean that we should not assume good faith in the interim, especially with IPs which which may be shared between dozens or even hundreds of individuals. Likewise, warnings such as the uw-vandalism4im you issued to are normally only given in the most egregious cases of vandalism, which this is not. Likewise your block request improperly asked for a "permanent block," which is clearly impossible as AIV criteria #3 states "IP addresses cannot be blocked indefinitely." Lastly, as noted in AIV criteria #2, the editor must have vandalized after your warning, which was not the case here. The IP vandalized Gun politics at 12:10, you issued a warning at 12:12 that stated "if you vandalize Wikipedia again...you will be blocked from editing," and the IP apparently listened because that was their last vandalism. Yet despite the fact that the IP apparently took heed of your final warning, at 12:13 you reported the IP anyway.

I did not realize you were a newer editor; if I had, I would have left this explanation on your talk page straight away. We the Wikipedia community cannot expect new editors to follow the "right way" of doing things if no one bothers to explain how things work, so for that I apologize. Dealing with vandalism can be very frustrating for everyone involved, but blocks are very serious and the proper procedure must be followed to ensure due process. Please let me know if you have any other questions or issues. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yee haw!
Redneck (stereotype). Enjoy, buddy --Cubic Hour (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom
Your participation in Arbcom is requested here. Thank you. 20:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

List of atheists RfC
Your views here would be much appreciated. Thanks. Rohirok (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Reading
Oh Anastrophe, you do make me smile so! I hadn't thought to READ the SECTION! What a great idea! Thanks! Have a wonderful day!--Cubic Hour (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand you don't like using your user talk page. That said, real quickly: When I archived Talk:MaraDNS, I removed the entire flame war discussion we had about nine months ago because there was a link triggering the spam filter in the discussion. If you wish to restore this discussion to the archive, be my guest. Samboy (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Whole discussion archived. Without the offending URL. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Bioweapons template
It's completely fine if you want to remove it, that's okay. I'm not going to quibble about it. My rationale is as follows, FWIW: my area of work on wiki of late has been chemical and biological weapons. In my research I have found that the U.S. had a fairly advanced anti-crop biological warfare program, for example the M115 bomb was designed to deliver wheat stem rust and the E77 balloon bomb was another specifically anti-crop weapon. In addition to wheat stem rust the U.S. weaponized rice blast and rye stem rust. I could probably eventually add a bit about each agents use as a biological weapon to the articles. I have slowly done this with a number of the pathogens listed in the template. But I don't want anyone to be confused, and I can add them back in due time, as the articles improve if you would prefer that route. --IvoShandor (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and they weaponized botulism too. Again, same thing as above. No big deal. --IvoShandor (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a section to stem rust, if you could take a look that would be excellent. I wonder if you would agree that the template is appropriate now? --IvoShandor (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I definitely saw your point, which is why I went to add to the article. Now I think it (Stem rust) could have the templates, as long as there are no objections I will add it. All in all a win for the article. --IvoShandor (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Roberts
I already reported that character. He's at about 7RR at this point. Best leave it be until they block him. Then we can fix it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Verio/citations
Thank you for the utterly brilliant and devastating replies in this thread (when EdJohnson simply seems to have given up responding)- it's a model response to deletionists.

re: citations.. WP's biggest problem is citations, but not for lack of them. Rarely are citations verified due to the difficulty of either obtaining the sources (books and journals), or the time required. The few instances I have checked other editors citations from books, I have found they usually say something different from what the editor wrote in the article. This happens for a number of reasons. 1. To avoid copyright problems the contributor re-worded the source in good faith, but in doing so changed the meaning in a subtle but significant way. 2. the editor in good faith misunderstood or misinterpreted what was being said in the source, often seeing what they wanted to see and/or taking things out of context in a literal way. 3. intentionally misrepresent the source in bad faith (or simply the source says nothing about it).

Thus, citations give the appearance of authority, but since they are rarely verified due to the difficulty of time and resources, they really have little authority at all. The emperor wears no clothes. The citations are only as good as the editors, and the editors, as you say, are unverified and unknown. Two possible solutions:


 * 1) Citations should include an excerpt from the source, thus the citation is self-verifying. This of course is not perfect due to contextual/literal problems and bad faith editors who just make stuff up, but it's a step forward that could easily be done right away as a best practice.
 * 2) A technical mechanism to mark citations as "verified". Number of issues with this such as who is trustworthy to mark verified, and what happens when previously verified text in the article is changed (the verified tag has to be removed and re-verified).

--Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

calling attention
I asked you a question on the article talk page which you didn't answer and may have overlooked. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Second Amendment Talk page
I've explained why my edit was relevant to the discussion at User_talk:SMP0328. It was a minor talking point, but was in direct relation to the topic of the article, and it was in response to another editor's request for sources. As I told SMP0328, it is considered vandalism to remove someone's edits from a talk page, except in limited circumstance. Although you might consider my edit "cute", as far as I am concerned, this is a serious matter. I will be restoring my edit and taking this matter to an administrator. Further removal will be considered vandalism by me. Thanks. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

2008 presidential election article
What would be the criteria for inclusion in this article, and are there any for the presidential election articles? Any I can think of would be arbitrary, save the inclusion of only those who received pledged delegates. However, this method would exclude Giuliani, Keyes, and several others that are listed. Tim meh  !  00:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

help
Hey, I saw your notice on the review board and just wanted to let you know that if you need any help resolving this I'd be happy to do what little I can. I will be away from a computer this weekend for Saturday and most of Sunday but will still do what I can. I just hate to see you be marooned, so just letting you know, you're not alone!Prussian725 (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * thanks. however, user hauskalainen has leveled charges previously that i am colluding with other editors, and that i may be an agent of the "gun lobby". both charges are false and no evidence was proferred besides further conspiracy theories but as a matter of remaining overtly and entirely above-board, i must decline any offer of assistance from my fellow editors. if you wish to weigh in on the matter, you're certainly welcome to, and i obviously won't discourage it. hope you understand.Anastrophe (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fully. Good Luck!Prussian725 (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Links on Second Amedment page
The question is not whether the links are "necessary" but whether they improve the article. Do you know that with the removal of the links there is not ONE link pointing to Heller original documents?68.160.176.7 (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Notice of of vandalism
H iUser talk:Anastrophe]

Would you look into Lyrical Abstraction I added references and as a result the whole list of participants have disappeared. This is vandalism. The addition of references are important to the list and consequently to the article.(Salmon1 (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

H iUser talk:Anastrophe]

The segment that I referred to has reappeared exactly how I intended. (Salmon1 (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC))


 * another user corrected the cites.Anastrophe (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Anastrophe (talk) !

Thank you for your reply. (Salmon1 (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

Your input is requested for improving the Second Amendment lede
Please add any input you may have as to whether the Second Amendment lede will or will not be improved by a mention that its purpose is to forbid Congress from "infringing" on the the right to keep and bear arms.00:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.98.56 (talk)

CSGV incident
FYI. Yaf (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009
I noticed the messages you recently left at Talk:Coalition to Stop Gun Violence were hostile to a newcomer. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * i will note here that the claim above is fraudulent. i was not "hostile to a newcomer". at least, i was no more hostile than this belligerent, hostile, threatening newcomer was to other editors. a paid mouthpiece for the organization, badgering and threatening other editors, hardly qualifies as a doe-eyed newcomer who made a silly mistake and was pounced upon by the evil cabal of gun nuts. quite not the case at all. one merely needs to read the comments in question to see that. Anastrophe (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Rudeness
Alerting you that this comment of yours directed to a new user is filled with rude sarcasm, and you may not be aware of this. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

reply
Truwik has been an editor only since December, that is 'new user' in my opinion. Your opinion may differ. And as I said, you may not be aware that your reply came across as rude, again opinions may differ. In my opinion your reply was dripping with sarcasm, which is a form of rudeness. If you and I disagree about this, we disagree. Maybe we can see a third opinion? Also, How is it fair for you to describe this as a misrepresentation? A disagreement, yes. A misrepresentation, no. In any case, rudeness on that talk page is a problem, please help out fixing that problem. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

more unclear on the concept comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller See additional comments under Scholarly commentary in discussion.

You failed to provide a citation to Wikipedia Policy for a decision that seems to fly in the face of building a reference-quality entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.11.48 (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

message from a troll.
You're one of those Bullshitting liberals that deleted my Gitmo headline. You better put that back, because I already think you're CRAZY! Renegadeviking

Greyhound Bus Beheading
I can appreciate your side of the argument. On the surface it really seems to fit, but after spending a lot of personal time sifting through a lot of marginal entries, it just falls short. The first time this entry was added (you're not the first) I really thought it should stand, but stripped down it doesn't hold up. But I love debating an entry so don't give up. Cheers! --JeffJ (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Gun violence
I gave a little more detail on the talk page regarding the reasons for the changes I made to the Gun violence article to remove inappropriate POV editing and asked you to justify further your reversions of those edits. Maybe you will be so kind as to examine EACH edit I made (there were several) and tell me why each was, in your opinion, inappropriate. That will give a basis for proper discussion of the issues. The reason you gave for the blanket reversion of my reversion of Yaf's edits is, frankly, disingenuous. You attribute motives to me that are from true.--Hauskalainen (talk) 10:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

another fun comment
rather than edit warring perhaps we can compromise? SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 10)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 10). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 10). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)