User talk:Apoc2400/Archive1

Log scales image
Hi, I've listed the image Image:Logscales.png, uploaded by you, for deletion as it is no longer in use in any article and has been split in four. Hope this is OK. Mysid ( talk ) 07:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine --Apoc2400 14:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Asahi Kasei
If you want this article to survive may I suggest reviewing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CORP and see if you can add anything to it to beef it up. I'm adding a prod tag to it because currently it fails WP:CORP but I hope you can add enough to it so it will pass the requirements. Mike (T C) 07:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Apoc2400 08:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

test
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.
 * I suppose you refer to my edit of EPR paradox. Due to a copy/paste mistake, the word "Magic" got inserted. I will redo my edit the way it was supposed to be. --Apoc2400 04:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Script
Yes, I could do that for you. Peter O. (Talk) 16:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Differences between the W.I.T.C.H. comic and animated series
I've added the "prod" template to the article Differences between the W.I.T.C.H. comic and animated series, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Differences between the W.I.T.C.H. comic and animated series. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Evil oranges 18:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
 Merry Christmas, and  May the Edit be with you, always. T- borg (drop me a line)  20:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:NetStorm Cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:NetStorm Cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC).

WP: Non-free content
Nice edits today at WP:Fair Use rationale guideline.

Could you keep an eye on Wikipedia:Non-free content? Tony Siddaway just tried to pull off the same stunt there that he recently managed at WP:SPOILER -- rewriting the policy his way, before discussion on any change was complete. It's quite possible he'll try again. Jheald 01:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I will keep a watch on the policy page. I try to follow the talk page too. --Apoc2400 01:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony reverted to his version and got it protected. We will have to keep watch, and make sure nobody refers to that paragraph on other pages. --Apoc2400 05:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Be careful not to 3RR. We don't want to see you suspended! Tony S just tried to pull his favourite stunt at WP:CSD too... Jheald 03:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry :-) I always try to observe my personal Two Revert Rule to stay clear of edit wars. --Apoc2400 03:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaargh! I'm usually considered a deletionist and I'm getting frustrated over there! --Butseriouslyfolks 05:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_January_14
I have undeleted both files and listed at IfD since I believe a greater discussion should take place, both sides have reasonable arguments. Cheers! -- lucasbfr  talk 12:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your question
... has a reply :) FT2 (Talk 01:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NetStorm Screenshot.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:NetStorm Screenshot.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rossrs (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NetStorm Screenshot.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:NetStorm Screenshot.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 08:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Your undeletion requests
I have undeleted: --Random832 (contribs) 15:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Ai_ga_tomaranai_cover1.jpg
 * Image:Logo-tvazteca.jpg

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NetStorm Screenshot.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:NetStorm Screenshot.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Foundation for a Drug-Free World
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Foundation for a Drug-Free World, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Cirt (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Apollo.gif
A tag has been placed on Image:Apollo.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mifter (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Stock symbols
Hey A2400: just a heads up that based on my read of the discussion at WikiProject Companies and at Sun Microsystems, I believe there is not any consensus to change the longstanding practice of having the ticker symbol in the intro. of company articles, and accordingly I am going to revert the handful of removals that you have done so far. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

YRE
Like I said earlier I am not worried about disagreements. My concern with BCG and YRE is the behavior and methods. I am extremely suspicious of them because as you noted BCG harrasses me and anyone taking the time to examine it(an enormous effort thank you) would arrive at the same conclusion. So why does YRE want both of us blocked? You also noted that this is not neutral behavior. Why has he not asked the same questions that I have asked of BCG with regard to verifying content or image policies? With both of them clearly interested in this subject why have neither of them added any new content or new pages? Why are their efforts devoted to altering(without reason) what I have done? I may have made some SSP's but I never openly demanded these guys be blocked, just made to follow the rules. If YRE calls for BCG's block why has BCG never attacked him the way he attacks me? The suspicious behavior that I mentioned was this. What was he doing there? The vote was closed yet he still voted. It looks like he is trying to log a vote against me even though I never actually voted because it was closed. I believe he was simply monitoring me. It happened that at that time I had left the baseball card pages. I decided to return since it appeared to me I was only going to be followed and annoyed. BCG has also gone outside of the bball pages to bother me. As you have seen BCG reverts me regardless of what I do. He does not revert YRE. I corrected an error here, BCG reverts it here, then YRE changes it back here but he never gets reverted. This may not prove they are socks nor does it disprove so. They could be a tag team. If not that then they are two distinct people that are very similar. Coincidence, maybe, maybe not. I stand by everything that I listed in both SSP's regarding these two. I appreciate your time and I don't want to waste any more but as I have said to others, what I listed in the SSP's is to me overwhelmingly obvious. If you would like to review those a little more closely you might see it. Otherwise I am not opposed to working with anybody provided they show the same respect I show them. Regarding content: this should not actually be a problem. Like the mediators here are saying, it is more of a behavioral issue. Libro0 (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems to be more of Libro0's lies and insanity. The world is not centered on you and looking for ways to eliminate those he does not like. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, no insults on my talk page! Let's calm down and work this out.

Hi, I am back. I wanted to make two points. One is that I hope you do not think I was shouting about my correcting your statement on AN. I should not have put it there but I felt I needed to clarify my intentions. I say this because Rgoodermote recently told an admin that I was starting up the shouting match again. Not so. I appreciate you letting me explain my point of view. The second thing I wanted to point out was that this soccer vote edit was made on June 5. You said he was mad that I accused him of being a sock. But I made this first SSP on July 12 more than a month later. He was already monitoring me. Hence my suspicion of him. Libro0 (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to bother you but he is at it again. He has replaced the unverifiable OPC CFL to 1960s Topps and removed the 50s era Topps logo. This content was all discussed. I have added the disruptions to the RFC. Libro0 (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

More lies from Libro0. It was not really discussed. It is not the logo. You are just doing this to make me angry. It is intentional. Why do you do this deliberate attacking? Baseball Card Guy (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

More Libro0 Lies
LIES AND SLANDER! That was just more Libro0 baiting with his fake 3RR on 1950s Topps regarding the non logo. He deliberately added false information, in this case a logo which is not the actual logo, knowing full well that I would notice his fakery and would revert it. It doesn't take Admiral Ackbar to spot Libro0's trap. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The Baseball Card Guy and Libro0 circus continues!
The spat between these two continues back in the same places. It is a no win with these two. Libro0 continues to make edits that egg on Baseball Card Guy   and then Baseball Card Guy reverts  , then Libro0 complains. Both are being disruptive with their deliberate actions. It needs to be stopped. Just ban the both of them, since that will be the only thing that will put a stop to this. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Taking a look at their recent behavior, I really don't think they are calming down. I also don't think Libro0 sees me as anything but a sockpuppet either. I would also contend that (and this will make Libro0 scream sockpuppet yet again) that what he is claiming as the Topps logo is not the logo. I have found a piece of letterhead they used in the 1960s on a contract and would suspect that they used something similar in the previous decade. They used the same logo on that letterhead on stock certificates as late at 1978   . It would appear that Libro0 used the text from a package of 1952 Topps baseball cards, which he assumed was the company logo. As you can see from this image  they did use that text for the company name on the individual packs of cards as well as the word "baseball" on the package. However, they used a different typeface for the company name on the box. This would provide strong evidence that Libro0's image is not in fact the company logo. If we look at packs of cards from 1960  and 1964   they just used the company name as stylized text. One give away should be the lack of a registered trademark symbol. It appears that by 1969, the company did put the company logo on their packs of cards  . Hopefully this will kill off this war. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Lies of Libro0
Libro0 is deliberately trying to anger me. Just look at when Libro0 adds back the logo that is not a logo which has been removed by me and others for not being a logo. This was deliberate. Then of course he gives me these vandalism warnings. Please stop him! Baseball Card Guy (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And another "vandalism" warning about Libro0 and his non-logo derivative image. This is just deliberate now. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with how things are provided the data is correct. However the 1981 table should go, that was already discussed on the cabal. I am also still considering formal mediation for other issues I have before I put anymore new information. Libro0 (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Marriage strike
This morning while you were redirecting I was having a go at a rewrite. Rather than revert your redirection I pasted my edits into a sandbox. It's in no sense a good or finished article but provides a little more depth to the term than the current Arguments against marriage paragraph. I would appreciate your thoughts on whether it would be a good alternative to redirecting the article. A significant part of me favors the redirect because I think it will be easier to ensure less POV pushing long term. But I spent a few hours putting the rewrite together so have a certain attachment to seeing that information in the encyclopedia if appropriate. -- SiobhanHansa 11:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There will be a lot of overlap, but your version provides a good view on the history of marriage criticism. The term "marriage strike" itself doesn't seem all that important, but marriage-critical activism and writing certainly is. Still, would it be possible to merge the two articles? Arguments against marriage is in quite bad shape too, and could certainly use a rewrite. I like the idea of separating it into historical periods since the criticism of marriage and marriage itself has changed a lot over time. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good plan but I don't know how much I could help with the more general subject. I did my best on the marriage strike rewrite but really sourcing from a couple of good newspapers isn't exactly great for what is, in the end, sociology. Do you have ideas or sources that could be used to improve and combine the two?


 * Also it looks like there's a bit of an external campaign (or a bunch of sock puppets) getting into the Marriage strike discussion. Might make sense to broaden input so there are more good editors keeping an eye on it before it gets out of hand.  Any ideas?  -- SiobhanHansa 11:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There are some ways to request outside opinions, but it's often hard to make people spend time on something. I'm still considering listing it at AfD since it is essentially a question of deletion. AfD has many regulars the know the Wikipedia policies well. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a blunt but often effective tool :) -- SiobhanHansa 11:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I listed it at AfD, discussion here. Please help out if I forgot something. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Warning on 3RR
I just wanted to warn you that making 3 reverts to the same article within 24 hours is against Wikipedia rules, and you could be temporarily blocked for doing this. This note is in reference to the He Kexin page. I hope you can constructively join the conversation there and help us reach consensus language. Thanks...LedRush (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made two reverts, and both were re-reverted by you. I will assume the above was a pre-empive warning in case I was unaware of the rule. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for World Bank Oslo 2002 Protests

 * Yay, that was easier than I thought! --Apoc2400 (talk) 07:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

possible neologism in Differential Execution
Hi. You put a note in my article on Differential_execution suggesting possible neologism. I am the author of the two peer-reviewed journal articles that are referenced. If you would like to see copies of these you can send me contact info via my email address on my Wikipedia home page. As I read the groundrules, it is OK for an editor to present his or her own work, as long as the discussion is neutral, and it is based on valid sources. If I'm mistaken about this, I will gladly change it. MikeDunlavey (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, now i remember. I'm the same person who tagged Software slug and the problem is similar. You can reference your own work in articles, but not write whole articles your own research. The topic of an article should have multiple independent sources. Is "Differential Execution" a term that is often used in computer science, or did you invent the term? Can you find other sources discussing the same concept? --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not often used, and I did coin it, although another reader points out in the discussion on that page that the concept is not altogether new, so perhaps the article needs some additional reference and possible renaming/reworking? MikeDunlavey (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Libro0
I demand an investigation of Libro0's actions, pattern of uncivil behavior, and frankly and apology from him. If he was polite and civil to begin with we would not have this sort of mess. He needs to be penalized for his actions and not defended. He intimidates those who disagree with him. He attacks in a textbook passive aggressive way, which those who aren't familiar with how passive aggressive people act would dismiss as normal. I have tried to bring his behavior to light, especially his attacks, often done in a passive aggressive manner to light several times, but it has fallen on deaf ears, , , ,. Here are some examples of his false allegations including the first and the second in a series of false sockpuppet alegations. Then there is this exchange where he eventually issues me an ultimatium -. There is more. Can't something finally be done or will this rouge be allowed to continue his bad behavior and waste the community's time dealing with the mess he creates? My guess is no. How about you step up to the plate and take some action? Your Radio Enemy (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Has Libro0 done anything uncivil in the past two months? If you keep asking to have him blocked over and over it just makes me and others more likely to believe that you are a Baseball Card Guy sock puppet. Just leave it already. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How about accusing me of sabotage, telling me what he thinks I should work on and of course a passive aggressive attack? Your Radio Enemy (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't look very bad to me. You really shouldn't be stalking Libro0. Even if he makes some edit to the Topps articles that you don't agree with, just leave it instead of edit warring about it. As I said before, if Libro0 makes mistakes it will eventually be corrected by somebody else. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on my ArbCom Elections page.
I have answered your comments there, and if you have any further questions or concerns about the situation, let me know, so I can answer them for you. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your answer. I posted a reply. I don't have anything against you personally. Just, ArbCom is important so the candidates need critical comments. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

dangling thought
At Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008, you have finished a paragraph with "In the ". Cheers, John Vandenberg (chat) 11:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I removed the unfinished sentence. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano
Bless you Apoc - Suggest you search user:Giano for 'blocked for hate speech' and arbcom for 'try the fugu' - if you have a few years to spend. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for advice, I guess. I really don't like to dig into drama, but what I see worries me. Fortunately, the top-level decisions here seldom have much effect on ordinary editors. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Re the reason you are looking for. I support Giano because, right for wrong he recognises how appallingly content contributors are treated here - like complete sh-t, like the working class were treated in the days of factories and so on. He stands up for us, always, and speaks for us. At least, that's why I support him. The Land Surveyor (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have heard this before, but is it true? In what situations are content contributors treated badly? Giano makes himself a spokesperson for content contributors, but is he? He is definitely a content contributor and he fights with admins and arbcom a lot, but is that all it takes? --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's wiki-political, rather than just political. Maybe it'd help if you see my response to a similar question by GoodDay, on his talkpage. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I know it's wiki-political and I know some about wiki-politics. I have always been very suspicious of the Wikipedia social networkers, the unaccountable admins, cabal of insiders, secrets IRC channels and all that. It just doesn't seem that Giano is really representing me or other ordinary editors. He is doing it for his own ego. Unfortunately, his drama gets him a lot more attention than more reasonable exopedian-advocates. Article writers, naturally, don't have time to figure this out. (this is based on my gut feeling at the moment, I will read Giano's essay and try to understand more) --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Inevitably, the grudge match will come to an end. I've no prob with Giano personally (I don't bump into him that often). But, I fear he's headed towards being given longer blocks. He's got 3 choices: 1- give up his grudge, 2- retire from Wikipedia or 3- continue to get blocked. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * One could hope so, but this seems to have been going on in exactly the same way for at least two years. I have never bumped into Giano either. Until a few days ago I only knew he was one of the controversial people here. As you can see above, I have taken a rather negative view. That might change if his supporters explain why they feel it is so important to support him. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The impression I got is, If he left? it would be bad for Wikipedia. I don't buy that argument, no matter who it's about. We're all expendable, editing on Wikipedia is a priviallage; not a right. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * IMHO, the Giano supporters are hurting the guy, rather then helping him. It's very difficult to bring a fella to court & determine his innocents/guilt; when everytime ya get him to the Court building, ya can't get'em through the door. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You have a point there. He isn't gone btw, he just edited some. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Apoc - I appreciate that you're just trying to help, but I think we are beyond the point where comments like yours could be realistically expected to help anyone. More likely is that you will make a number of people angry with you (as has been happening to some extent already). Avruch  T 19:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll consider you comment, but I feel that there really is a need to show that Gianos conspiracy theories does not have wide support. There seems to be quite many people who actually think he is some kind of hero fighting the evil conspiracy. Are you one of them? --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been following this pretty closely for a long time at this point, so I'm aware of all the various ways people view this situation. I think if you delve into the history my point of view will become more clear, but I wouldn't advise you putting in that type of work. If you want to make your opinion know, you'd be best doing it in the least inflammatory and most analytical way possible. Picking a side and criticising your new opponents is perhaps the least helpful contribution you can make at this point. Avruch  T 20:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to self: Why did I get involved in this stuff? I should know that it never gets anywhere. Someone remind me if I stray too far into drama-space again. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Tis OK, Apoc. I've left those discussions 'yesterday', as I became bored with it. The less attention those discussions get, the quicker they'll end. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet here I am, submitting a statement to the ArbCom case... I don't think the Giano drama will end any time soon, but it has never prevented me from editing articles and it probably never will. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It'll end. Either Giano will retire, eventually be indef banned or he'll drop the whole thing & go back to making Wiki contributions. Wikipedia can't function in an anarchy state. The Arbcom & the Administrators are needed. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yesterday, I really couldn't understand why over 300 people voted for him in last years ArbCom election, but now I think I do. If he had to deal with stuff like the POV pushers at Liancourt Rocks and continue writing his articles, he would have no time for wiki-politics. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

To block or not to block
Heh heh. I'm enjoying the drama at Giano's page. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, is Giano blocked or unblocked? GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unblocked. Well, unless there is a new block on someone else with the same IP, but I don't think so. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Jumpers, he's got to learn to control his temper. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Tecmobowl
You think you could silence Tecmobowl? You are wrong. Yes I am Baseball Card Guy. I use my laptop to leech off of people's unsecured wireless connections. I use proxies. I use libraries. You don't know how many accounts I have. Your blocks, I laugh at them. You'll just wind up pissing off people who don't know what I am doing. You can't silence me! You haven't silenced me! You will never silence me! You'll be shocked to find out who my main block evading sockpuppet account is. It is someone you trust. 72.229.126.142 (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for a Peer review of the bball pages. I think it would be best to get aas many opinions as possible. I agree with you about selective reverts. I think if an edit is sound then it should stay wether it is a sock or not but I also think the pages should be semiprotected. Libro0 (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: this. I have not been able to gather enough people for discussion but I have been wanting to talk about the inclusion of OPC or the excess of OPC info on Topps pages while the OPC pages have been totally neglected and need extensive work. I think OPC should be not be absent but very limited on Topps pages. I apologize if you are busy but I just thought I would bring these things up somewhere. Libro0 (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I don't know anything about baseball cards. I do know some about Wikipedia formatting so perhaps I can give some comment on that. I will take a look. It is bit difficult since I keep thinking tables=BCG and text=you, so other people can probably give better advice. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Great response to my comment on the hash function lounge!
I was busy when I added my comment to the talk page, and delighted to just see your edits to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIST_hash_function_competition! --NealMcB (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Refimprove tag on the Race and Intelligence article
Could you please explain on the article's talk page the reason for putting the refimprove tag on that article? Seeing as it has already 150+ references, I'm at a bit of a loss to explain the tag. I could think of a few reasons why you'd put up such a tag, but it's best not to keep other editors guessing. Thank you!--Ramdrake (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"Drama"
To even comment on my page with such a heading is particularly unhelpful. Please be aware of the meaning of your words before posting them. To take only one example, the term "drama" is neutral, by itself, and only takes on pejorative meanings through gay slang, as in "drama queen." To employ it and to allege that a person has caused it is, therefore, to accuse the person of being a catamite. That is, by itself, a personal attack.

Additionally, my comments at Giano's talk page were, in fact, extraordinarily helpful, as they were from one old timer to another, and they cut the "drama" away from personalities to reintroduce Wikipedia policy and practice. I am astonished that you believe that asking for people to follow our practices and uphold our policies is dramatic, except that it would confirm, once more, that what is now expected is personality driven actions and party allegiance.

You may wish to reexamine your impulses, as well as your words, and consider whether you are interested in encyclopedias, such as Wikipedia, or social networking sites, such as MySpace. The latter are honest in their regard for personalities and egos, and the former must never suffer hypocrisy nor hypocrites who bring those interests to the fore. If you wish to apologize for the personal insult, I will be listening. Geogre (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I had no idea about the connection between "drama" and gay slang. I have never heard about it before. It seems to be quite common slang on Wikipedia and the internet in general. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Although I think Geogre has overindulged himself with the allusion he's drawing, I would agree that your comment was unhelpful, as was S. Dean Jameson's follow-up up remark. I wonder if I might persuade you to withdraw it? Mackensen (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe, if you explain why. It would probably be too late to make any difference, and I still think just what I wrote. I might had done differently if I knew that George was a wiki-famous old-timer, but that shouldn't really make a difference. Still, I might strike it if you explain the problem. George doesn't seem like someone who would lash out from a comment on his talk page. Otherwise, I will make a longer reply to his message above later. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, because I'm another old-timer who would rather stop something before it starts and has no stomach for these things anymore ;). Certainly it's pro forma, but I've withdrawn comments on occasion simply as a gesture of good faith (and because my conscience was bothering me). While drama for me doesn't carry the sharply negative associations Geogre has attached to it, in the past it has risen to the level of a term of abuse (see also "controversy"). Mackensen (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I trust you on this. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Apoc, I strongly disagree with a remark made elsewhere. You're doing just fine. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  12:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Maraca (hash function)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Maraca (hash function), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Maraca (hash function). Thank you. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: RfArb removal
Apologies for that - I was just notified on my talk page by DuncanHill regarding that. Thanks for the amendment. Kind regards, Caulde  17:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem! --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Apoc2400/Giano unblock request
User:Apoc2400/Giano unblock request, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Apoc2400/Giano unblock request and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Apoc2400/Giano unblock request during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. NE2 11:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I guess I assumed a bit of bad faith here, and I should have asked you if there was a reason for creating it. (You probably should have created it in his user space though, since the intent was to transclude onto his talk page.) --NE2 12:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I wasn't sure if I'm allowed to create a page in somebody else userspace. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)