User talk:Arimareiji/Archive 1

Straw man comment
WTF is that supposed to mean? Are you insinuating that I am the anon user? LOL. Check the IP. Rarelibra (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm asserting that I think it's likely. arimareiji (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are truly lost, Arimareiji. Wow. Rarelibra (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Trust me, you are wasting your time trying to reason with Rare. :] I'm waiting for him to provide us all e-mails; that will be a treat.  In the meantime, I suggest taking the high road, and simply sticking to the topic on the admin page.  I think most people are continuing to agree with the shared naming approach (Lar, etc.).  Icsunonove (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

hey
lucky you to pop into the famous Trentino-Alto Adige-South Tyrol debate. It has gone on for a long time. For some reason there are a few users who insist that only South Tyrol should be used in English. The vast majority of reasonable users have gone for the dual-naming, and the pages have been very calm ever since. Obviously that map should have both names, but since Rarelibra's domain is maps, I guess he thinks of this as his last stand for "South Tyrol". The ridiculous bit is the sharing approach has all the names on the map! :) So, they have to ask themselves, what indeed are they trying to accomplish, right?  Anyway, I have posted to the admin page, I'll try to look up again, but I'm really too busy this year for Wikipedia...  I just have a fantastic luck to show up when there are these 'debates'. Good to meet you, and thanks for helping out. Icsunonove (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't care what he says; he has a grudge that is lasting for years. I saw his posts telling you to "check his IP".  I looked at that IP, and it is not even the ISP I use.  Anyway, I can't check his or your IP (or visa versa).  The guy is just aggressive and delusional.  He doesn't make any real rebuttal to the arguments, and why do people do this?  Because it is a reaction to situations where they have no valid and intelligent counter-argument.  Anyway, don't worry about it, the vast majority of people agree on the shared solutions.  The ones pushing for one name make themselves look worse and worse by pushing for this elimination of other terms.  Icsunonove (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You've caught yourself in a deep trap, Icsunonove. You and I communicated quite a bit offline when you were under the username of Taalo. Funny how you forget that the history is captured here. At one point you even added an entry to my userpage, and you later updated it when you changed your username . Remember now? If you want I will pull the emails and present them too, but the above proof should suffice. Rarelibra (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Rarelibra, you are showing me that unfortunately you are even more disillusion than I thought. :) We have never communicated offline.  Why do I know this for sure?  Because I've made it a practice to not communicate with anyone offline of Wikipedia.  That makes it pretty easy for me to remember.  So, please do, pull up e-mails and present them to me where we communicated offline.  I don't even own an e-mail account that doesn't include my name in it, so if you find those e-mails, I give you explicit permission to post them here with my full name and e-mail address!  I have never hidden the fact I changed my username, most people familiar with "the topic" know it.  How that is proof that we corresponded by e-mail, and that I know your real name is beyond my comprehension.  So, please explain this, and then do indeed provide our e-mail threads.  Rarelibra, I really have no time nor need to hold things against you.  You seem to not be able to chill out and see the 'others' point of view on here, and even simply forgive and forget.  So, I'll make a little online wager with you, under the assumption that someone in the military is honourable.  Show me these e-mails where I know your name, if not, I think you should really take some time to think how you rush to judge people and make accusations. Icsunonove (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Rarelibra: Present genuine proof of your assertions, or stop making them and take an extended break RIGHT NOW to cool down. This sort of brinksmanship is extremely destructive, and personally I think it's ridiculous that you've gotten by with it for this long. Later apologies don't alleviate the chill you create with these persistent tendentious tactics, and I think you know it and use that to your advantage.

As Icsunonove said, your current posts prove none of your assertions. You've claimed he's the one with something to fear if you reveal all of your secret evidence, but I think the truth is that you're only hiding your own fear of having your bluff called. He's said you have his permission to post any proof you have publicly. Do so in the appropriate thread, which is ANI - not my talkbox or anyone else's. arimareiji (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Lets drop it. He thinks I'm denying things.  I hope that he does take the time to review the proof he says he has, because I know very well it does not exist.  He may have communicated off-line with many people, but it was never with me.  Only chance is I hit my head at some point, and forgot all of this, but I'll truly be amazed if these e-mail threads exist. :-)  I know Rarelibra has for a long time been upset with the decisions that were taken on the region and province pages.  I wish he'd see we came up with those in good faith and they are multi-lingual names, where if someone was Italian-POV they could actually push for names that have no German content.  I am pushing a POV though, one that we should respect the multicultural history of this region and use the shared names that are even well documented.  Anyway, in a lot of other cases I can agree with Rarelibra, obviously in this one he just thinks we are bad bad and more bad. :-) Icsunonove (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Arimareiji, you may like pizza, but you never, ever make any sense; especially not in concerning matters of deletion.Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the Fudgecicle Are you still writing for the AfD Vienna fingers discussion?Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the Fudgecicle

Gasolina
Thank you for your advice, Arimareiji. However, I have difficulties understanding what I have to do now. If I repeated the same questions to Kartel King, it is in order to avoid a new edit war. Concretely, can I add in the article the deleted section without asking for his opinion ? Europe22 (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I will complete the article Gasolina (Papa A.P.). Thanks for your help. Europe22 (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion at Cindy Ady
Thanks very much for your intervention there; I'd responded with a request for further input, if you're willing and able to provide it. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Dresden
Just to say that I do not enjoy the polemical blame game with respect to Dresden. In my view it is a tragedy, though my sympathies are more with those who condemn it than with those who justify it. I particularly dislike the black propaganda of the latter linking humanitarians with Nazis and the weasel wording of the term 'target' where a putative target - the industry and communication networks of Dresden - is confounded with what was actually targeted - the old, wooden, combustible, city centre. In my view the bombing was terrorism, which may or may not be a war winning tactic. In my own view terrorism IS quite an effective tactic of war, but for the apologisers to admit this would blow their phony moralistic credentials sky-high. Colin4C (talk) 09:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto. I'm not fond of using euphemisms such as "results of the bombing" to stand in for "tens of thousands of deaths and the subsequent world outcry" either. =/ arimareiji (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Vienna fingers
I looked at the Ghits and read the arguments. I also happen to be aware of the notoriety (notability) of the product, in the real world. It's clearly notable. It's the article that's the mess. It needs fixing, but that is no reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many cultural references are required for a brand-named food item in order to be notable. There is no bright-line test, nor any specific criteria at WP:N.  If you feel strongly about it being deleted, and that my decision was erroneous, then please take it to WP:DRV.  I generally don't get involved in appeals of such nature. Bearian (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I think it could be expanded: there are news items about ownership of the brand, copyright disputes, whatever. One area where help would be appreciated, however, is over Ask the fudgecicle's mistaken belief that raw Google searches are acceptable as references. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Vienna fingers DRV
I'm just posting on that point - non-link to the DRV - to the DRV itself, which is at Deletion review/Log/2008 October 30. I agree with you - I think there was considerable misunderstanding of the Google News results, most of which mentioned them only trivially in passing - but I don't think you'll get a review. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * still stumped as to how using the listed "subst" could have done that
 * Yeah; as you may have seen in the message above on my Talk age, I just used it wrongly and a bot completely removed the page content. WP:SUBST is the reference for when /when not. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS and Vienna Fingers
Hello! I want to advise you that I reverted your attempt to remove my referenced source for "The Odd Couple" in the article on Vienna Fingers. The source that you substituted, http://www.divxmoviesenglishsubtitles.com/O/Odd_Couple_The.html, does not meet Wikipedia standards as per WP:RS. In fact, that link is a blatant violation of U.S. and international laws regarding copyright and intellectual property -- the text was clearly put up without Mr. Simon's permission or clearance. The referenced source I originally provided is the approved text and it meets WP:RS. That being said, I am retaining your reference to the 1968 film, since it is obviously more famous than the play (which doesn't get performed much anymore). As for the article...I can appreciate your disappointment that the AfD did not end as you hoped (trust me, I know the feeling). Furthermore, I hope that we can work together on future projects, either in regard to article creation or in trying to remove articles that do not belong here. Thanks, and please stay in touch. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, at the risk of being called a smart aleck:



Ecoleetage (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Please stop removing proper references
I have reverted your attempt to remove the referenced source to "The Odd Couple" in the aforementioned article. If you continue to remove this referenced source, you will be reported for vandalism. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I happen to be a professional actor and I did "The Odd Couple" on stage some years ago -- I still have the book in question and the lines from the film script are taken verbatim from the original Neil Simon play. (I played Murray the Cop, in case you are wondering.)  Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Question for you
I left a question for you here. Toddst1 (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

For Arimareiji, my new friend

 * Actually, my name is Eco Lee Tage. Or at least that is the name I gave myself.  "Tage" is a gibberish name I gave myself when I was a child (don't ask).  "Eco Lee" is a play on "e.coli" (another don't ask story).  Can I ask about "Arimareiji" -- what is the origin of that name?  Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did a rewrite of an anime film some time back -- did you ever see Roujin Z? Incredible production, about an atomic-powered hospital bed.  What kind of articles are you focusing on for your Wiki work? Ecoleetage (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

COI situation
Thanks. Even though redacted, your comment is pertinent; there's a very tense relationship between WP:COI and WP:OUTING. I'm not really sure what to do about this. Perhaps I've inferred too much; even so, it's hard to ignore a situation where someone claims objectivity, yet produces a book credited as co-authored with, and produced by, people who sell the thing the book is about. Perhaps it is objective; if so, there's an amazing inability to see what the situation looks like from outside. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

My mistake
When I reverted your recent edit to Backronym (regarding AC/DC), I didn't notice that you had added new references. Sorry for that. Phiwum (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
for the note on my talk page. It's nice to know that you are starting to learn Japanese. I noticed that your user name could be a Japanese name, 有馬 礼治/玲司/怜二, whatever the kanji of the given name is, and I thought you might be a Japanese American. BTW, I am she and ,as you already know, Japanese. Unlike Mf, I hope my English is understandable enough on en Wiki. As for Mf, I don't mind helping Mf at all, but it seems to me that he minds. When you need some Japanese help, feel free to ask me. Happy editing. Oda Mari (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion: Lysanias
Thank you for your help on the Lysanias entry. It was much appreciated. Best. --Doktorspin (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Star Trekkies
Do me a favor, kay? Don't ever call a fan a "trekkie"? Me included? Trekkies are groupies. Trekkers are serious fans. And, FYI, Trekists are the true fanatics who can ID episodes by the color of the sky. (I've never met one, but I believe it...)  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  07:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess it does. I hear "Trekkie", & think of the ignorant. It grates on me like "sci fi" does, 'cause they've both been used as insults (derisive, anyhow) for so long. IDIC, I guess. Live long & prosper.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  22:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Right both times. :D Manga Zombie, huh? Never heard it before. That's like Marvel Zombie, which I cheerfully admit to. I grew up on Marvel (tho I did start on Flash...); DC's episodic stories wore real thin real fast, & it wasn't til Marv & George came back with NTT I even looked at DC again (tho I did see 'em as "faux X-Men", which didn't stop me liking the book. Nor "Heroes", for all that, tho she helps. =])  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  23:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

71.243.223.66
I blocked for 48 hours this time. I do not look kindly on resuming the same edits right off a block. Daniel Case (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The Labyrinth of Flames?
Hello, my friend! If you have a moment, can you please check out this request that came on my Talk Page:. Anime is not my metier, so I wanted to see if this was an assignment that you would be able to pursue, if you schedule allowed. I hope all is well. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No prob -- thanks for the input. Hey, did you see what happened with Vienna Fingers? Who knew there could be so much interest and activity in that subject ? You know what is really sick? I never actually had the cookie -- I have no idea what it tastes like! Ecoleetage (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Need your help!
Hi! Please take a look at my resent edit here and it would be grateful if you correct my English. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad you joined
You seem like a reasonable person, and I'm glad you joined Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind some of the craziness here, but if you do run into problems, let me know. (email may be faster than a talk page message since I don't know how much time I will have for continuously monitoring Wikipedia in the future.) Please also take a look at my reply at WP:HD, lest it falls in between the cracks there. &mdash; Sebastian 03:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the note on my talk page; I would have indeed missed it otherwise. And thank you for the links - the more resources I can keep note of for future use, the better. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm right now reading an essay that you might find interesting, too: User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-FactsFromPOV. This was written by a user who isn't active anymore, but I promised to read it, and I will write some replies on the talk page. It would be great if you could join me there, too. &mdash; Sebastian 04:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: I just read your closing words. I still think my reply was more pertinent than may seem at first glance, but be that as it may - as far as I'm concerned, I don't feel like you were spending my time. &mdash; Sebastian 05:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Kasaalan
Every time I see that name in red next to T:RC, I have SUCH an urge to reach for that block key! However, my better nature always seems to overcome me. Just play it cool. I know I haven't been able to resist a zinger or two, but one of these days he'll say something so over the edge that he'll get himself blocked. He's come close.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

SPLC
Dearest Arimareiji, it is the audited financial data itself that demonstrates the points about SPLC financial issues, one way or the other--nothing else. This is precisely the information a group must report to the Internal Revenue Service to retain one's tax-exempt status (which SPLC has done for many, many years). It is published on the internet for all the world to see. There is no other source for this information, and any comment from another source would have to be based on this same information. It must be credible, or no auditor would sign off on it--and no group can really afford to lie to the IRS. This is a credible civil rights organization, with which some individuals disagree, possibly because they don't think civil rights of other persons are important. They are merely expressing a preference by questioning the credibility of this organization. They have no real basis otherwise. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that's not really the way an audit works. An audit is performed by an independent third party according to strict rules prescribed by somebody else (usually a national association of accountants) which cannot be affected by the one being audited. It is like a peer review of one's financial statements. SPLC's independently audited (by somebody else) financial reports are on the page linked in the reference. SPLC did not write the audit report, the auditor did, and staked their reputation as an auditing firm on the result. The whole point of the audit process it to get outside, unbiased scrutiny of the financial statements. It couldn't be more RS than that. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, audit reports are recorded in archives (file cabinets) of the auditing agency, but are not published unless the organization audited publishes them itself. There is no other source. Furthermore, it is illegal to tamper with an audit report or misrepresent it, and the auditing agency would report it to the IRS if they discovered it. And they could discover it, posted on the internet for all to see. One must be reasonable about these things, yes? Placing impossible barriers in the way does not help build an encyclopedia. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm informed on the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that the SPLC publication Intelligence Report which was questioned by two users "has been named at least twice by the Society of Professional Journalists in their Green Eyeshade journalism excellence awards " and may be used as a Reliable Source.
 * I'm also informed on the same page above that a link to an audited financial statement on the home page of the audited organization may be used as a Reliable Source, so it seems the objections of two editors in that regard has no substance. I will make the changes you suggested, and complete a couple others you attempted by which I think got lost in an edit conflict with so many cooks stirring the pot at one time. I do appreciate your efforts. Please check mine. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good, let's see if we can keep the vandals from rewriting the whole article, as they tried to do earlier today. I've put back as much as I can track from the history.
 * Do you really think all that old financial stuff is necessary? Doesn't seem to add anything of value to the article, and predates the most recent info on financial matters. What say we take out the Harper's article from 1994? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Self-hating Jew
Thank you for breaking up the two of them. Now it looks like they're back at it. :-( — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

i quit. i promise. even if it means i dont get the last word (grrr) ;)  will one of you replace the lead cause i am too involved (understatement) :) Untwirl (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

PR again
Thanks for the note, I've cautioned him. Jayjg (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Rachel Corrie
The talkpage here is over 400K. Why did you revert the archiving? --Elonka 00:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Arimareji, I've been trying to give you some leeway here, but your continually reverting attempts to archive an obviously long talkpage, are starting to violate WP:OWN. Please be aware that administrators do have the authority, per Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, to take necessary actions to ensure the smooth running of the project.  When a talkpage is over 400K, this is an obvious clog that needs to be cleared.  If you revert another attempt to archive the page, you could be looking at sanctions, so please tread carefully. I see that you have become somewhat single-minded on the Rachel Corrie article for quite awhile now, though it hasn't always been like this.  Perhaps it's time to edit some other articles that are not in the middle of major disputes, to try and get some perspective?  I'm sure that there are many places around Wikipedia which would benefit from your attention. --Elonka 05:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Beg pardon? You made one unannounced edit to add a bot, and asserted consensus based on no one responding to "the page needs to be reduced in size soon." I had previously asked you to give me some time; your response was the above. I reverted that one edit. How is that continual? arimareiji (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You reverted twice, even though no one was objecting to the plan of action except yourself. Can you consider that you might be too close to this particular situation? Why is it so important to maintain a 400K page, that you are willing to engage in a revert war to protect it? --Elonka 05:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not about building consensus. A group of editors can't camp on a page and say, "We have consensus for this page to be over a half-meg".  Administrators are simply going to come in and archive the page.  If anyone objects and continues to revert, they're just going to be blocked for disruption.  Especially if the article is within the scope of an ArbCom enforcement case.  I'm willing to wait another 24 hours, but other admins might not be as lenient, and if an uninvolved editor goes to the talkpage and complains that it's so long that they can't read it, the page is just going to be archived, complaints or no. So I recommend either getting the page archived, or try to find some other solution (such as a "todo" list, or moving everything off the live page to a subpage). But one way or another, the talkpage needs to be brought back under control. --Elonka 06:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You're starting to write as long as Kasaalan (where is he these days?) but I actually have to think to answer you. Why don't we work out a solution to all of this here and implement it? I really don't want all of this to break down into conflict.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources
In sections #22 & #23 on Intelligence Report and Audited financial report. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie / Saint Pancake
You may be interested in my post here. Thanks, Mike R (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sad Little Zombie Corpse
I just wanted to let you know that I truly enjoyed your phrasing here. Kja er (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The logical fallacy that not saying "XYZ is true" is the same as saying "XYZ is not true" has already been shot to pieces, and its sad little zombie corpse is looking pretty ragged. If there's a WP:RS which says Ayn Rand is not a philosopher, please bring it out. If there isn't, there's no rational basis for discussion. arimareiji (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha
Hi. If his behavior is becoming disruptive, I would bring it to WP:ANI. Hope that helps. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:EW
Please read this on the Rachel Corrie talk page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Now on AN/I: Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(manual move)

Re: Gasolina (Papa AP)
(Discussion of article moved to Talk:Gasolina_(Papa_A.P.)) on 16:03, 29 October 2008 by Arimareiji

Seasons greetings (no Vienna Fingers, though)...


Ecoleetage (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

Added on 22:14, 23 December 2008 by Ecoleetage

Silence implies consent
Taking this all to User talk:Girolamo Savonarola for clearer discussion. moved on 00:34, 30 December 2008 by Girolamo Savonarola (/manual move)

sorry
that i led malcolm to the rachel corrie page, i think i made quite an enemy of him at the self-hating jew page, especially seeing as he got blocked for his behavior there. there is probably a bit of resentment. i'm still pretty new at this and haven't figured out how to deal with this type of thing. any advice would be greatly appreciated. Untwirl (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

wow. that was deep and hilarious at the same time. shows how uneducated i am, i knew the phrase, but not the story. didn't even now it was from solomon. seems that in this day and age much less emphasis is placed on the humility aspect, it just basically gets summed up as "things will get better." thanks for linking to that. jewish humor always has that great, "the world's gonna bite us in the ass and then we'll laugh about it," smartass feel that i love. and the stories of judaism are fascinating and complex. are you jewish? Untwirl (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * shit, looks like he's at it again. Untwirl (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)  actually thats the 3rd rv by him in the last 3 hours  . . . Untwirl (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * its true, the best way to unite people is to give them a common enemy. i still feel like its incomplete without a comment about the disputed versions, but at least the biased ruled/maintain statements are gone.  he's gone and apologized to brew and duke for "starting a commotion."  i wonder if they can forgive him?Untwirl (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * btw i am a no-tail http://www.slangcity.com/realenglish/outdoorsigns/spank_the_monkey.htm (see league of gentlemen ) Untwirl (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * TLDRed? Tirelessly Lied about Despite Reality? Totally Logjammed Due to Righteousness? (i actually havent heard that one before . . .) Untwirl (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * i'm such a sucker for these neverending arguments. but my need to study for exams is going to have to overpower my desire to call out hypocrisy! : )  i've done this with malcolm before and its pointless, he's completely uncooperative at all times.  now brewcrewer, ugh!  i am going to force myself to not check this for the rest of the day.  i'll chat wicha manana.  Untwirl (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * he kept trying to tag the noticeboard resolved with his as the last post and gwen had to revert him twice. its obvious to anyone who's reading it that he's grasping at straws and misrepresenting himself. from past experience i know that he wont stop unless he gets the last word.   Untwirl (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * what do you think when one pov editor tells another to enable his email? is that like offline canvassing or something? Untwirl (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * the users in question are both pov warriors with the same pov in i/p. it doesnt look innocent to me.  is it worth reporting, or would my surfing talk pages come into question as stalking or something? youre allowed to read usertalk pages, right? Untwirl (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I am in favor of sleep
There are two fundamental problems with the suggested move. First, there was no consensus for the radical rewrite of the DEC 31 version of the article. To begin to edit this article is to act as if that rewrite, with its radically anti-Rand POV was valid. So, we can certainly revert to DEC 31 and work from there. The second funadmental problem I have explained on the talk page with my suggested alternative wording. My comments can be sourced, not immediately, since a few books in storage. But do sleep first. Kja er (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have provided four references for my statement. Kja er (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand arbitration
This is a courtesy note to all editors who have submitted evidence. Some contributions to the evidence page have been moved to the evidence talk page, per the prior notice given. General comments, observations, analysis and so forth should be posted to the evidence talk page and workshop pages. Main evidence page contributions need to be supported by linked evidence. Material moved to, or posted on, the arbitration case talk pages will still be noted and taken into account by the arbitrators.

Some portions of evidence moved to the talk page may be appropriate for the main evidence page. In the process of moving material, keeping some material on the main evidence page would have required rewriting the evidence, taking bits clumsily out of context, or otherwise deeply affecting the presentation. Editors should feel free to rewrite and reintroduce such evidence (with supporting links) to the evidence page.

Some submissions remaining on the evidence page still require further supporting evidence. For example, claims about broader pattern of behavior need to be supported by comparable evidence. A paucity of diffs, links only showing some mild infractions, or otherwise weak evidence may result in your assertions being granted much less weight.

I encourage all parties to finalize their evidence and focus on the workshop over the next few days as the case moves towards resolution. If you have any comments, questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Vassyana (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"Two World Wars, One World Cup"
More recent than you think, Pick up our Classic War Movies collection of 14 DVDs (7 February 2009) --PBS (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Few would consider English Football fans to be representative of the best educated in Britain, but when it comes to scoring a goal against Germany they will put out their hands to represent a Lancaster bomber chant The Dam Busters theme. I doubt that there's an adult in Britain who does not know the German words Luftwaffe, Achtung, Hände hoch and the phrase in heavily accented English "For you Tommy the War is over!". Which is why a British historian would use the phrase and expect the average person to know what Achtung meant. --PBS (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Headsup Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style --PBS (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Red links
I don't know. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Chutzpah
Don't antagonize me again! Now You've been Warned!Victor9876 (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't care less about what YOU believe! You want it both ways - you want to be uncivil while demanding civility - can't have it both ways.--Victor9876 (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

great comment.
thanks for getting it back on track. i'm going to take my statement seriously and try not to respond to off topic remarks. untwirl (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenoes
Me, I'm resetting as of now and moving forward. I don't have a recommendation for you one way or the other beyond my bland philosophy. In addition, my opinion (no claim to fact) is that he is still concerned about and how it got there. I choose the believe it was unintentional (however it got there) and think the topic should be dropped. The RfC is the right focus now, IMO. (John User:Jwy talk) 21:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Dresden
Your comment of one world cup and two world wars says it all. You are reverting everything I am adding, even though I have reliable references. I know I won't win this one, as most people here like to whitewash this. However, I will sure try. Wallie (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If you agree with me, why are you countering what I am saying? I said that Churchill was the architect of the raid, which he clearly was. He came up with the idea, ordered it and kept on pressing for its implementaion. Also, I said the USAAF was the major participant and should go first. They dropped far more bombs on Dresden than the RAF. This is in the table down the bottom of the article. Wallie (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I never said that the USAAF was responsible. They were the major participant though, dropping more bombs. It was Churchill's idea. The thing that annoys me is that Harris is held responible by most, and he was only a small player. Wallie (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on the knife argument. The thing is that Churchill clearly ordered this, and blamed it on Harris. It is high time that people realize that Churchill was the hand and Harris was the knife. Churchill is the one. I will try to get a better reference. Wallie (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Smartalec
I'm not sure it counts as being a smartalec when it takes you nearly 5 hours to think of it... ;) --Tango (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Your answer to this question...
...was excellent, correct, but made me wonder whether you considered that this might be homework. If you did, and decided it was not, then no big deal - we just differ in our interpretation (and that will happen). Since you're relatively new on the RD, I suspect that you might not have seriously considered that possibility. If that's the case, please keep in mind that we're not supposed to do peoples' homework on the RD. That's why I answered the way that I did - I provided a link to a useful page, and suggested that the OP come back with any specific questions (which I anticipated might lead to helping him/her down the path you provided). Like I said, if you composed your answer after concluding that this wasn't homework, then we're both on the same page, seeing it differently, and that's OK. --Scray (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Charles Whitman
I have left a reply on this page. I expect an answer very soon or I will take your conduct to WP:WQA or perhaps more significantly, WP:AN/I. This is unacceptable behavior. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

...got it, let's see if we can nip this in the bud before another WQA. Edit Centric (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Whitman Article
You seem to be the level-headed one. I've posted the following on Jwy's page.


 * "All I did was make a few stylistic edits to a portion of the article that was not in dispute. I started with the first paragraph and got to the third or fourth. I made no substantive change. Then ALL of it was undone. Any new editor would want to go away quickly. Some of your colleagues are rather emotional, aren't they?"

Thank you for your comments. This has been very educational. Snipercraft (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent Articles

 * The Skies are Weeping
 * Philip Munger
 * Phil Goldvarg
 * Talk:Phil Goldvarg
 * Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie
 * Linda McCarriston

Can you help me with the articles, you have some better editing abilities. Kasaalan (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Gasolina & Gasolina (Papa A.P. song)
Hey arimareiji. I've got a major concern about two articles I'm dealing with on Wikipedia, which are Gasolina and Gasolina (Papa A.P. song). I've had a concern with a cover version of a song having its own article, when I felt it would be right to instead merge it with Gasolina since the writers of both version (one of them being Daddy Yankee himself) are the same. I've even used Respect (song) as an example for the subject of original artists and notable covers. I discussed this with Kartel King and Europe22 and this has turned into a major edit war that has lasted for a long time now. I was referred to you by Europe22, asking for a third opinion on my edits to both Gasolina and Gasolina (Papa A.P. song). I've redirected the Papa A.P. version to a section in the original Gasolina article (which I'm afraid will be reverted sometime later on again by Kartel King). Please reply soon. We need a third opinion! :) El cangri386  Sign! or  Talk 21:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. I was referred to you because you were also in a little argument with Kartel King once before and you, Kartel King and Europe22 discussed over this situation and decided to leave the Papa A.P. song to its own article. El cangri386  Sign! or  Talk 22:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)