User talk:Archaelicos

Note to posters: I'd like to keep conversations organized and together. If you post to my talk page, I will reply here in most cases. If I posted to your page recently, I'm probably watching it for a response. Try to pick either your page or mine to discuss anything you'd like to discuss, so it's all in one place. Thanks, Bjsiders 16:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Open Proxy
I've been told that most of my editing is done from an open proxy and that this is a Bad Thing. I'm not completely sure what the implications of an open proxy are, but it's beyond my control to fix or address. Moreover, I'm switching to a new ISP in a few months, so hopefully that'll solve it. Bjsiders 17:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This should now no longer be an issue. Bjsiders 18:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

User Page
You seem to have been around for awhile now, why haven't you created a user page? Not that it really matters, I was just curious. Thanks. -- LV (Dark Mark)  21:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really that active. I don't even know what user pages are for. :) I only have an ID so that if I edit something inappropriately, there is a method for tracking me down and telling me why my edit was bad so I'll know not to do it again.  What do you put on user pages anyway?  I guess I could just look at somebody else's and find out. Bjsiders 21:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok I added some user page stuff. :) Bjsiders 21:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, first, I am not necessarily a fan, but you can label this section what you want. Second, this is your talk page, not your user page. See that little red link up there in the top left hand corner? That is your user page. It is not required that you use it, I was just curious why you didn't. Oh well, I hope you decide to stick around. WP can always use more editors. See ya. -- LV (Dark Mark)  22:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a facetious title. I moved that stuff to the user page, thanks for the tip. Bjsiders 22:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem. If you ever have any questions, don't be afraid to ask. That is what we are all here for. Cheers. -- LV (Dark Mark)  22:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Washington University
Hi. . .I've noticed we've both been reverting the same editor who is removing the infor about Chancellor Wrighton's salary from this article. Any thoughts on what we can do besides continue to revert? Would the information be more appropriate at Mark S. Wrighton or further down in the article? TMS63112 17:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the user's lack of responsiveness, I suspect he/she either doesn't understand how Wik-E works or doesn't care and finds the information distasteful for some reason. I believe we could petition for a page lock if the reverts continue but I'd prefer not to drag this into "official" Wik-E channels. I don't know where else to put it. I don't really care for it being so close to the top of the article either, but it belongs with information about the chancellor, and the chancellor's name certainly belongs at the top. We can try moving it if CY removes it again and see what happens. Bjsiders 22:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I contacted the admin noteboard about this, a sysop is looking into it. Bjsiders 22:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Washington University Article continues to be vandalized.
(copied from User talk:DESiegel):

Hi! You helped us out before over at the Washington University in St. Louis article. A specific user continues to remove sourced information, despite continued requests and pleading from a half dozen users that (s)he at least discuss his/her edits. An official warning was posted and the user continued anyway, and was temporarily blocked. The user's block has expired, apparantly, because (s)he immediately went and made the same edit again. It seems clear that this person is interested only in ruffling feathers and being a nuisance. The IP belongs to Washington University, they may be interested in knowing that a user is using their network to harrass and vandalize another web service, which is in violation of the University's terms of service for their student network. Bjsiders 19:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone else has already reverted the change, which so far has been amde only once today. I have warned the user. Any user is fre to reprot what seems to be abuse to any ISP. The block was for 24 hours only, which is the stndard length of block for this sort of thing, so this user did not retuen as soon as the block expired. I have the page and the user on my watch list. DES (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Clinton reacting to the cameras
Talk:Rush Limbaugh: What Clinton did is beyond dispute to anyone who's seen the frame by frame analysis. The answer to the question of why , of course, is in Clinton's mind. But people are free to come to their own conclusions. There's no way that MSM was going to draw attention to it, and Limbaugh in the new media could and did. Reporting of this nature has been repeated over and over again, not only merely to catch Clinton in a embarassing act, but to show that the MSM is no longer a gatekeeper to fact and opinion. patsw 14:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because a guy was jovial, and then turned somber at the same time that he noticed a camera is not PROOF that the camera was the reason. The two events may be correlated, but there may or may not be a causal relationship.  Knowing what we do about Clinton, I personally believe that you're correct, and that Clinton's response was motivated by the fact that he was on camera.  However, it cannot be KNOWN unless Clinton himself admitted to it.  That's the difference.  Whether or not the MSM could report on it honestly is not the issue.  The incident from Limbaugh's perspective is notable in his article because it's an example of him picking up on stuff that goes ignored in the media.  However, your insistance on describing the event as you have been is misguided, in my opinion. Bjsiders 15:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Proof isn't the standard here. If I have a camera flash go off in front of your face, and you blink, the conclusion a reasonable person would draw from observing that is the flash caused the blink.  I'm only applying this same standard to the observation that Clinton upon noticing the cameras changed his mood abruptly and there's no other alternative explanation being offered for the change in mood based upon the video evidence. patsw 16:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If 'proof' isn't the standard for what we put into an Encyclopedia, then I guess I don't understand why we doggedly insist on all of these quotes, citations, sources, links, and documentation for the things we add to Wikipedia. Further, I have a simple alternative explanation: Clinton thought about something sad and his mood changed.  It happened shortly after he saw a video camera.  Total coincidence.  Is it likely?  No.  Is it possible?  Yes.  Do you know for sure that he changed his mood BECAUSE of the camera?  No.  You even said yourself, we don't know why. Bjsiders 17:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Good, NPOV edit on the Limbaugh page. Eleemosynary 17:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

fromthewolfstar
Hi Bjsiders, Thanks for leaving your comments on my talk page. I really wish people would leave comments on the bottom of the page, though as they are so much easier to find. You are entitled to your take on the situation as am I. I have come back a few times with an unneeded vengeance, however, this is true. The comment I made was more a reference to the lack of support I was getting or had gotten on the first block. Also people tend to see what they want to see and just won't look at the whole picture. I still appreciate your input, which overall tends to be good.

I love the quote you have on your page by —Michael Creighton on consensus. I wholly agree with it and it is amazingly fitting here at Wikiland.

I don't really want to fight with anyone anymore, but I know my own nature and when I see others who are mistreated like the many who have rfc's on them, or are blocked or banned forever, etc., I know I will. For instance see the rfc on Merecat. Merecat is still the best all around person I have met or come across at the WikiLoonia.

No hard feelings and peace, Maggiethewolfstar 18:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

-- Hi BJ are you around? thewolfstar 00:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm here and there. Feel free to leave a message, I'll respond at my earliest convenience. Bjsiders 04:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

hey BJ
Hey, Bjsiders, they put a page protection on the Dem Party article page. What happened? Do you know who did this? If you know can you leave me a message on my page? Thanks, BJ Maggiethewolfstar 17:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Flatulence
Assuming I understand it correctly, I don't agree with the logical methodology you're using to arrive at your conclusions on what information in this article is a "lie" or otherwise flatulent.

Umm, you DID mean "fraudulent", right? ^_^;;

I hope you won't be offended when I say that's one of the best laughs I've had in some time. Take care, Kasreyn 21:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

republican changes
How has the party become conservative overall?

Jerry Jones 22:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The Republicans have been pandering strongly to the "family values" and religious crowd since Goldwater's defeat. This is how they've picked up the South, which was considered until the last 30-40 years to be a rock-solid Democratic voting bloc.  Now the Democratic party is fortunate to win even 1 or 2 states in the south.  President Bush has supported a few non-conservative causes, and the Congress is spending too much, but other than that, the party is staunchly conservative on balance.  Bjsiders 12:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Killian
See talk. I think you're right about Rather's view but it should be cited. Kaisershatner 20:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"Democrat Party" article
Hello B. Our old friend rjensen is up to his old tricks and has written an article called "Democrat Party" that dignifies this term. Wikipedia is considering deleting the Democrat Party (United States) article. I hope you will weigh in on the topic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Democrat_Party_(United_States) I believe an article about this perjorative term doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Griot 00:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

american conservatism criticism section
I added some criticisms that conservatives make about liberals. Now tell me, does that crap really belong there? Think about what you are arguing for...unabated POV and opinions inserted into articles. Just think about it and tell me that that is indicated. ER MD 15:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I note that ER MD is his usual cheerful self. Thanks for your support in the cabal mediation, but I got blocked for 24 hours for reverting ER MD's blanking and while I was gone, he blanked everything I had written recently in Conservatism.  The cabal mediator decided, while I was gone, that ER MD and I should work harder to reach an understanding and closed the case.


 * I have never had this much trouble reaching a compromise with any other Wikipedian. I've offered at least a dozen compromises.  He hasn't budged an inch.  Anyway, I wanted to thank you for your support, and let you know that I'm back and editing again.  I've restored the Criticism of Conservatism in the Conservatism article and asked the mediator to take a look and see if he agrees with ER MD that it is POV, OR, and Weasel Words.  Rick Norwood 14:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The mediator has reopened the case here: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-13 Conservatism in case you would like to add a comment. Rick Norwood 21:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for signing up!
WikiProject Law can always use a few good hands to help make Wikipedia the most comprehensive internet source of legal info. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Limbaugh's voluntary appearance at the PBC jail for booking and plea
No dispute here. As I wrote on the talk page, the current text, which I helped to edit, is accurate. patsw 19:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Chock full

 * Wikipedia articles are chock full of embarassing details that occur in the private lives of celebrities.


 * The fact that other editors have failed to maintain standards in other articles is not an excuse to ignore the applying the policies and guidelines to the issues at hand.


 * And if you can find an embarrassing detail in the articles of celebrities of the political left such as Al Franken or Bill Maher let me know. I looked and didn't find any. patsw 16:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Clinton's private life
The incident of which you speak was not merely a private one, but a matter of false public testimony to Judge Susan Webber Wright for which Clinton agreed to pay a fine of $90,000 and accept disbarment as a plea bargain. patsw 16:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Look at Clinton's article, there's plenty of other incidents mentioned that are speculation and claims that aren't even known to be true. They're all there, they all involve Clinton's private life.  Almost every famous person's article with any such controversy has this kind of information, Limbaugh isn't being singled out. Bjsiders 16:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you cite one or two examples of speculation and claims from the Bill Clinton article which are embarrassing, wholly private, and not allegations of criminal or unethical behavior, I would appreciate it as I was unable to find any. I'm not a regular editor of that article.  I will look into the article history and see if there are examples which were attempted to be added and deleted for the reason that they lack significance to the subject but were verified by news accounts as accurate. patsw 23:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Some verified published reports of consensual affairs Clinton had, attested to by the women themselves and third parties, have been scrubbed (more than once) as (a) private and (b) not confirmed by Clinton himself. This is the sort of private embarrassment of which I am speaking of. patsw 00:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Limbaugh having possibly acquired prescription drugs illegally is an allegation of criminal or unethical behavior, so I reject the conditions of your analogy. Bjsiders 02:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Limbaugh, continued
I thought I'd comment here rather than add to the War of Attrition that seems to be breaking out on Limbaugh's Talk Page. I think you raise a very good point about what is or isn't encyclopedic. By the standards of the current article page, which includes (among other things), Limbaugh's romances (both documented and speculated), his comments re: Compuserve, and his nicknames for himself, I think the airport incident deserves mention, albeit a brief (even one-sentence) one. Were it the Encyclopedia Brittanica, Limbaugh's entire entry would probably be one paragraph. On Wikipedia, though, many entries contain info much less newsworthy and noteworthy than what happened at the Palm Beach Airport. Eleemosynary 01:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right in that Limbaugh's page is littered with fancruft, and I submit that none of it really belongs there. Given the amount of People magazine-type garbage that seems to infect the pages of all celebrities, it's kind of a pointless battle to start.  I don't feel strongly one way or another, but my instincts are telling me that four paragraphs about a story that turned out not to be a story is too much.  From the talk page, I got the impression you agreed in part on that measure.  I don't have the time (or interest) to fix/remove the section right now.  Every time I make edits to that page I'm leaped upon by Limbaugh fans who suffer little disparaging material, including the removal and rephrasing of laudatory material.  It's a tough page to work on.  Thanks for stopping by and offering your opinion and insight. Bjsiders 03:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I completely agree that it's worthy of inclusion, but only a brief mention. Unfortunately, as you've seen, there are some Limbaugh fans to whom any inclusion of the incident is equivalent to the desecration of a deity.  I have to admit, it's fun to stand up to those folks.  And amusing to watch them twist themselves into partisan pretzels justifying scrubbing an incident that, had it happened to Al Franken, they'd be leaping to include on his page.  Eleemosynary 04:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

the liberalism article
Hi. I just wanted to thank you for your comments here. I started a poll that concerns the confusion. Would you mind adding your input to the poll? Thanks. Sha nnon duck talk  07:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you found what I said so incoherent. Here is what you said on Talk:Liberalism:

"Since the term "liberalism" means so many things to so many people, and those specific things have changed over time and been assigned new names, this article might be best off as a summary of each with links to more detail. "American liberalism" is unique from "Canadian liberalism," which is completely different from "Enlightment liberalism" which is distinct from "classic liberalism" which is not the same thing as "social liberalism," etc. What do you all think of something like that? The scope of a term like "liberalism" is like trying to write one article that fairly and accurately captures all of its facets is fairly ambitious and may even be impossible."

I am saying the same thing that you said. Different ideas exist about the term 'liberalism', by varying groups of people, in certain historical times. The article tries to combine all these different ideas and portay them as if they were one and the same thing. That's all I'm saying. Is that more comprehensible to you? Can you respond to this, please? Thanks. Sha nnon duck talk  18:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes that make sense, you may wish to update your poll with the clarification on the talk page. Bjsiders 18:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Conservatism mediation
Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-13 Conservatism is still going on, with zero progress after more than a month. A new mediator has come aboard. Since beneththelandslide and Scribners both claim that 1) I only want to criticise conservatism because I am a liberal and hate conservatism and 2) that everybody agrees with them and nobody agrees with me, I would appreciate it if you would drop by the page and add a word or two. Rick Norwood 22:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but ER MD cannot be reasoned with. He's the most stubborn editor I've ever tried to work with.  I'm staying out of it. Bjsiders 04:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

what the #*%$@?
What on earth is going on on your user page? Who are these people? Rick Norwood 18:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but if I had to guess, they're probably some players from a MUD whose article I recently nominated for deletion. Bjsiders 01:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is them. Short version: when I was in college I helped a guy run a MUD (text-based on line game).  I later found evidence that I believed showed he was cheating and quit.  He thought I was cheating and this huge and incredibly juvenile pseudowar broke out.  I eventually gave up mudding and at some point reconciled with the guy.  My "ok" was needed for some stuff I wrote for the game in its article here.  A few months after that, the guy showed up on Wikipedia and starts editing his own game's article, removing all non-positive information from it.  The whole stupid thing broke open again and I decided not to get involved.  The game doesn't even merit an article in the first place, so I submitted it for deletion, and now they're vandalizing my user page, calling me names, posting personal attacks on talk pages, etc.  That' my take on it, of course.  I'm sure theirs is much different, and probably involves a conspiracy theory about me being out to besmirch their game, post lies about it, be unable to "get over it," and whatever else makes them feel good.  In hindsight I regret ever getting involved in the article in the first place, something like this was bound to happen. Bjsiders 01:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I still wonder how ED MD got into the picture -- did they just pick his name at random. I really can't see ED MD = ER MD playing MUDs. If it ever comes up for mediation, and you would like me to put in a good word for you as a reasonable person, I'll be glad to. Rick Norwood 13:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No idea, I didn't even realize he was involved. If anything comes out of this regarding me and my status here I'd appreciate a good word, but I don't think it'll be necessary.  There's really nothing going on other than a few people feeling put on the defensive and responding to it inappropriately. Bjsiders 14:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that led me to think ED MD was involved was this:

"moved User:EH MD/monobooks.css to User:Bjsiders:". Maybe that was something else entirely.

Do MUDs still run, or has technology left them behind? Rick Norwood 14:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, I did see that, and ER MD did come to mind, but the editing user is an admin I think, so I figured it was a rogue bot doing some mischief and left it alone. MUDs still run and are still quite popular.  Bjsiders 15:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

A Waste of Emotion and Energy?
I imagine that dealing with all of the past issues with the Dark and Shattered Lands page, and the strong reactions to it, has to be emotionally and mentally taxing. I read the discussion and histories on the page, and it seems as if you began editing it constructively. However, it seems to have degenerated into a headbutting battle, with far too many personal attacks on both sides.

I'd like to thank you first for your earlier help with the page. My question for you is what do you feel can be done to improve the page to the point that it won't be questioned as a valid article? I'd gladly try to improve it myself.

And just so you know, I was flagged as a single purpose account, but that isn't accurate. I was simply making contributions to this site without credit for some time, before I realized that I could have a user account. I find the layout of it all rather confusing! I'm sure I'm not alone there. --Victoriam 18:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought it was an excellent article that chronicled the rise of DSL and its triumph over its various obstacles and controversies. However, as soon as Mr. Allen and the DSL spin crew showed up to sanitize it, they immediately began attacks on me, implications that I and others who had negative experiences on DSL were somehow sad or pathetic people without girlfriends, and accusing us of spreading lies and misinformation, and other kind of stuff that I had thought we could put behind us.  Through whatever mechanisms, a dissenting view of the situation of the controversies can't even be suggested without a huge mess erupting.  I'm not willing to slog through a bunch of MUD drama that happened ten years ago, but I still care about the integrity of Wikipedia and I don't want it to become just another vehicle through which Tony's 409 crew filters information.  If the article can't talk about anything substantive beyond a list of game features and an in-game history, then it's not Wikipedia material, and I do firmly believe it ought to just be removed.


 * Despite the various childish insinuations that I am some kind of bitter old crank still on a crusade to smear a MUD, I'm a happily married guy in law school with far better things to do than wrangle with Tony and his cadre of sycophants over this garbage. I'll make a token effort at cleaning up the mess (the deletion nomination) and if it fails, I'm done screwing around with it. Bjsiders 03:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and this is going to sound completely snide and snotty, but no discussion that involves these people is "mentally taxing." The only emotion it taxes is patience. I did try to edit it constructively, and I tried to make sure that unfair material was not included, and that the article presented a fair, balanced, and neutral perspective. When that work was trashed and my motivation came into question, I just decided not to get involved and try to do the right thing by Wikipedia. If the consensus is that the "right thing" to do by Wikipedia is to leave the article, then it stays and contains whatever they wish. Other than this one comment I just posted, show me a single instance of me making any personal attacks. I don't do it. I debate facts, positions, and ideas, I don't debate people. I've been called unethical, a liar, a cheat, bitter, a grudge-holder, pathetic, sad, a loser, and god knows what else. I have not responded in kind.

I was also a Wikipedia editor for about a year before making an account, and I'm still learning how things work. My greatest fear is that one day somebody will nominate me for an adminship. At that point, I've been too involved :) Bjsiders 04:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If it is not too presumptuous, let me suggest you just avoid the whole issue. Since I know nothing at all about the MUD in question, but have more familiarity with fan feuds than I would like, I'll try to edit the article so it only contains objective information of interest to non-participants. Rick Norwood 13:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm done with it either way. I appreciate your input and good judgment in the matter, and any contributions you can make to the issue. Bjsiders 13:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation on Rush Limbaugh Page
Would you mind weighing in with your opinion on the Chelsea Clinton incident? It is now under mediation. Eleemosynary 05:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Democrat Party
Back in June, you participated in a wiki discussion about deleting an article called “Democrat Party (United States).” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Democrat_Party_%28United_States%29). It was agree to delete this article and redirect it to Democratic Party (United States) -- the real name of the Democratic Party. However, someone has revived the Democrat Party article. Would you care to weigh in on this at that article’s Talk page? I think a redirect is in order in accordance with the decision we reached last June.

WUSTL Project
--Lmbstl 12:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 20:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 04:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Archaelicos! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Roy Trubshaw -

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)