User talk:CSTAR/archive1

Bye?
So ... are you gone for good? I had a few more questions about operators I'd hoped to ask. I assume you'd gotten hopelessly tangled in controversy, and decided to just walk away from it all. Call or write; some of us miss you already. linas 21:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It is a very sad day when the link to your user page turns red. Most Wikipedians are just a name on the screen for me, but some transcend the medium and become real persons, who leave a void when they disappears. I hope you'll return safe and sound. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I hope you come back also. As far as the dispute with Carl Hewitt, the arbitration comittee might still decide on it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear CSTAR, I am sorry to see you go. You markedly improved my contributions to the Wikipedia and helped me to become a better editor. Regards, --Carl Hewitt 00:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hope you'll come back someday, CSTAR
Hi, CSTAR, looks like you quit WP? If so you probably won't see this, but I hope you'll eventually reconsider, since I thought your contribs were positive. I'd like to privately make a suggestion by email, if I can get in touch with you that way. ---CH 00:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe the "E-mail to user" link to your left still works for him. Give it a try. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Seconded (we can always use more sane science editors). --Christopher Thomas 23:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

We never interacted much, being as we tend to favour different parts of the Wikipedia, but I have always been impressed by the work you do. Best wishes in all that you pursue. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 04:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A sad day for Wikipedia. From a user your contributions helped. Ksenon 08:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

A job for you
I'm not going to get sentimental here; I just want to say your work here isn't finished. Specifically I'd like you to comment on the contrubutions of John B. Conway. I wrote the stub yesterday and made John Conway into a dab page, expecting that the links to it would have to be sorted out between the two mathematicians. To my surprise I have not yet found a single link that's clearly talking about John B. Given that the man has a very solid record of publication, 20 successful PhD students, and various widely used textbooks, it's startling that no existing article in functional analysis would need to link to him. You would know more about this than I. --Trovatore 00:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Weclome back!
Welcome back! linas 18:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Paul August &#9742; 00:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Help needed: 2nd deletion request for Afshar experiment article!
A non-expert is again requesting deletion of the article. Your vote would be appreciated. Prof. Afshar 18:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Nature reference on Bell's theorem article
FYI, I notice on Bell's theorem that you deleted a reference to an article in Nature. The author of that article has recently joined WP, see User:Dave Kielpinski. You may want to say "hi". linas 14:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. Thanks for the rollback. Dave Kielpinski 12:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

feeble wikipedia style
I don't understand what's going on with this diff. Is the \quad there to force PNG rendering? I have rendering always on, so I don't notice that, but isn't the standard way of doing that to use \,? doesn't \quad put in a lot of whitespace that makes the PNG bigger than it needs to be? -lethe talk [ +] 22:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The whitespace at the end is automatically trimmed so it doesn't really matter, but the "house style" has been to use  to force PNG rather than  . But either works. -- Fropuff 23:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Back!
Good to see you back around. Guettarda 04:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * & my thanks for your congrats, too - William M. Connolley 14:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC).

Afshar experiment
Good to see you back in the action CSTAR. The title is not the issue (I made a full revert which included that change), the problem is allowing Danko Georgiev to make changes to the main article (like adding his joke of a "paper" as a ref.) and making other changes without discussing them in the talk page first. Frankly, he lacks any credibility whatsoever due to his lack of understanding of subject matter, and worse, his stubberness to accept his errors. Not ONE physicist interacting with him would approve of his fundamentally flawed arguments, which negates the very foundations of known and verified physical laws. At any rate, he needs to stick to the agreement made after his futile deletion bid, which is to discus a change before implementing it on the page. Please take a look at his history. Regards. P.S. I had not put the Prof. title in the article to start with, perhaps it was Linas. -- Afshar 16:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I think it was Danko who added that. :-) linas 01:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Concern
Dear CSTAR, lately, I'm a bit concerned about your well-being. Is everything alright? Please take it easy and relax a bit. The universe is much bigger and more fantastic than our small windows allow to experience. And above all be happy for being alive and privileged to enjoy its beauty and wonder... Cheers buddy, and keep well. Drop me an e-mail if you wish to talk privately: afshar@rowan.edu Best regards.-- Afshar 17:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No no, just trying to be funny. Life is fine actually. Thanks. --CSTAR 17:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Phew! You had me there for a second! Good one! -- Afshar 17:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Blog
Dear CSTAR, My Blog has more than 600 Q&As regarding the experiment, and is a good source of info. More specifically it is where the arguments of critiques have been refuted. If you insist on removing the link to my Blog as spamlink, then you should also remove Motl's entry that's a link to his Blog. Please let me know what you intend to do. Regards.-- Afshar 20:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Afshar:


 * The link to Motl is to an archived page on his blog, with a specific critique of your experiment. Similarly the the other links in that section point to online papers. You are free to modify tour FAQ to include the 600 Q & A's. Wikipedia is not a debate even with indirection via blogs. However, if you put a link to your blog in an external links section that would be acceptable to me.  Note that you can do anything you want--I  won't revert you twice. I just acted  in a way whcih seemed to be in everybody's best interest to avoid a blog war.--CSTAR 20:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear CSTAR, if you kindly take a look at the top of my Blog, you will realize that it is actually dedicated to the Q&A. It is not a Blog in the usual sense in which someone writes their day to day thoughts etc. If you feel it belongs to an external link, then please put it there, but it would be better to be reverted back to where I put it as it does indeed contain rebuttals of critics. Currently I do not have the time to convert the Q&As into the FAQ format. Thanks!-- Afshar 21:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I added a link to my archived Blog page with Q&As related to refuting critics. If you wish to remove that link, please remove Motl's link as well just to be consistent.--Afshar 18:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The link you added does seem to be a link to an essentially static archived page. Note that I was not trying to create policy; however, it did seem to be a bad idea to link to a blog here for th ereasons I mentioned. --CSTAR 22:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversy
Dear CSTAR, it has been 1.5 years since my experimental results were publicized (not 2), and the controversy surrounding it is certainly considered as "recent". Physicists are still discussing the correct interpretation at the American Physical Society meeting and other conferences, and no consensus has been reached yet. So far 5 out of 6 referees for a peer-review publication agree with my interpretation and the paper is due soon. I hope you change the tone of the introduction as soon as that publication is announced. BTW/ 1.5 years is not even a blink of an eye for debates on a foundational experiment. It often takes 5-10 years, and in Einstein's Gedanken experiments it still rages on! Regards. -- Afshar 19:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

re Apology
I think your answer was perfect, actually. Guettarda 22:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back
Welcome back, CSTAR! :-) - Gauge 19:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

From mathbot
Hi. I am a bot, and am writing to thank you for your use of edit summaries 91% of the time for major edits and 95% of the time for minor edits, and to tell you that there is always room for improvement. Your edit summaries are very insightful, at least as much as my limited bot intelligence can tell.

I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 22:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Redaction
I'm really sorry about that. I made a mistake. I was following the contributions of an anonymous user, who had put an insult on your user page on Feb. 22. Someone else had already removed it, and several more edits had happened since then. I somehow missed the fact that I wasn't looking at the current version of the page. My bad.--Srleffler 05:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Danko Georgiev
Dear CSTAR, I wish to ban Danko Georgiev from Wikipedia for his repeated accusations of Fraud to me regarding my experiment on the talk pages. My experimental results were verfied by faculty from Harvard and other schools. I will not allow this idiot to ruin my reputation. He must be repudiated by the Wikipedia community. Any help you can offer in this regard would be appreciated.-- Afshar 06:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Trying to ban someone is a last resort.  Try an RfC first. --15:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Scientific peer review
I'd like to mention WP:SPR as something you might be interested in. Cheers. Karol 19:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi ,and a question
Hey, we haven't talked in a long time. May as well start with something technical. I posed several questions on Self-adjoint operator that I'm hoping you can answer. linas 21:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Mackey
Good work with George Mackey. I found him a pleasant person. Charles Matthews 22:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I would say he had a "pure" vision about mathematics which was uncorrupted by personal ambition. --CSTAR 22:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbiter article
Thanks for fixing my typo.

I see from the talk page that there was some big dispute over the quantum mechanical and philosophical implications. I'm not clear on that issue; I just think of it as an difficult but now-solved problem in electronics. The effective quantum aspect I know of is that you're guaranteed some random noise will be around to kick you out of a metastable state, and you can put a lower bound on that noise, allowing you to calculate a gain that will guarantee the noise will get the arbiter unstuck. Is there more to it than that?

Did I take out anything important while trying to make the article more readable? --John Nagle 18:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I know there's some controversy about Hewitt, but I'm not sure what's going on. I'd been looking at Direct logic, which came in recently from User:Anonymouser, who is clearly very into Hewett's work. That article about some new concept from Hewitt, but the term "direct logic" has been been used before, by others, to mean something else. I have some interest in decidable theories used for proof of correctness; I've done automatic theorem proving work, and I recently added a section on applications to Presburger arithmetic. So I was interested if someone was doing work on decidable theories. But that's not what's going on here. This is, I think, another "weak logic", like circumscription. There are many such attempts to apply formal logic to the real world. They never quite seem to work well on real-world problems. (I went through Stanford CS at the height of the "expert system" boom of the 1980s, so I got to watch many of those attempts.) It's presented in such an abstract style that I can't tell what's being said without extensive work. I made a few edits to describe what some of the nonstandard notation meant, got in a reference to the more classical "direct logic", and that's good enough for Wikipedia. As long as this is off in a non-mainstream area, I'm not too bothered. --John Nagle 21:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'm not going to get anywhere near the relativity issue. As long as the articles on areas of logic that have engineering applications don't get too messed up, I'm not going to worry about the philosophical issues.

I just took a look at quaternion, which has some wierd stuff in it. I use quaternions as a useful tool for handling rotation derivatives in a game physics engine, but there are people who imbue them with deep philosophical meaning. I may add some more practical sections in there. --John Nagle 01:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Multiverse
May I ask the reason for deleting the links to relevant fictional Multiverse articles? Netkinetic 04:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Because for reasons of logical organization and presentation, the links to those articles should be in the main articles that deal with multiverses in fiction. As is clear, I am not the only person with that opinion.--CSTAR 04:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Dembski
You have made no attempt to respond to my issue with the Dembski article. I feel it's best to create a straw poll to get additional opinions on the POV and significance (or lack thereof) of the section. Trilemma 14:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Falsifiability article
CSTAR, I wonder if you'd be so kind as to check out the Math section of the Falsifiability article? Any really blatant problems? suggestions? Thanks...Kenosis 01:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll look at it carefully and do the best I can, but the issues it brings up are very difficult, and may require some very scholarly attention which I may not be able to provide.--CSTAR 03:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Michael Scheuer article
CSTAR, I appreciate your attitude and reasonableness on the Mary McCarthy page. Even though I think we may be coming to the page from a different political point of view, I can respect your opinion. Would you be willing to look at the Michael Scheuer page and see if you can keep things cool. One editor has a problem including certain Scheuer quotes I feel readers will want to read. RonCram 23:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your confidence. It might take a while to see what's going on there. Although sometimes the situation in some articles is too far gone for anybody to do anything. Generally the first thing I do is to establish a footnote format (I see the Michael Scheuer already has one) and insist everybody use it. Also I use the template. The drudgery of documenting everything may reduce some of the conflict.--CSTAR 00:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Many-worlds interpretation
Hi J. This article is being edited by an unresponsive and highly opinionated new editor with no idea of the rules. I'm out of reverts. Please take a look. --DV8 2XL 22:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Update - the User has been blocked --DV8 2XL 23:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, that was me. The victim was . -lethe talk [ +] 23:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Now User:DenisDiderot has taken up the cause of the newbie edits to that article. I think this is a user that you've butted heads with in the past at this article. I'm not sure I want to get sucked any deeper into this battle than I already am. I'm currently reading through your old arguments on the talk page, trying to figure out where Diderot is coming from. -lethe talk [ +] 11:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

your endorsement, please explain
Could you please tell me why you endorsed a statement saying that I treated other editors on the Juan Cole page "unfairly". I actually thought we were doing well working together and trying to come to consensus. If I have treated you unfairly, or anyone for that manner, it would be helpful to me to have examples. elizmr 23:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the record is pretty clear. The statement says:
 * Elizmr with Armon's help are very good at fighting off criticism -- mostly through persistence and treating others unfairly. I am concerned that they will bully their way to biasing this article against Juan Cole because they do not like what Juan Cole says.
 * It said treating others unfairly. In the context of the hectoring and bullying that was going on that page, I think this is accurate.--CSTAR 01:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry, I misspoke. What I meant is could you give me an example of an instance where I treated any other editor unfairly since you have put your name to that statement?  elizmr 01:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)  Also, I would appreciate examples since you are endorsing an attack of me here.  elizmr 01:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well then it's clear how you behaved unfairly. A reasonable characterization of the activity on that page, at least since I started looking at it, was that three editors were acting in concert to revert and endlessly challenge even minute changes (e.g., the use of pundit) that in any way reduced the imbalance of the article. In addition, the level of bullying that was going on was astonishing. Though I take it at face value that you didn't revert, you were certainly there to provide legitimacy to the reversions and to the bullying. Look I am perfectly capable of discerning good cop/bad cop combinations. --CSTAR 01:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * PS you added "attack" after I made my reply. --CSTAR 01:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry we were editing in concert. Your reply was not on the page as I was writing--see the time stamp.  About the "pundit" thing, I also thought the dispute was over the top.  If you remember I proactively tried to end it by having everyone comment instead of the edit war that others were engaged in and suggested compromises, like blogger, which you liked but others didn't.  Finally, as there was still warring going on, I took it out of the lead and left it below for a comprimise.  I am suprised you think that I was editing in concert with Isaring, because he was editing the hitchens section mostly and I wasn't even reading that because it was such a mess and so contentious that it was actually painful.  I did notice that he was using a lot of blog sources so I sent him a note about a better one to encourage him to stop doing that.  I had agreed WITH YOU that the whole translation thing should probably be taken to separate pages and off of the Cole page if you remember.   Isaring had wanted some comment from Wolcott out and was warring about it with Lee, and I actually sided with Lee on that and took it out myself after commenting on talk that I thought the comment was justified.  Armon and I were generally in agreement and making some edits along similar lines, but there was nothing planned about it.  You can believe this or not, but even if you don't, it is unfair to say I treated **anyone** unfairly.  You have still not demonstrated this, and it is just not true.  If you are so upset about the page slandering Cole, you should be equally concerned about not slandering others.    elizmr 02:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * May I ask you to retract the use of the word "slander". You may legitimately disagree with everything I say, but to call it slander, frankly takes this to another level.--CSTAR 02:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you like, I will retract that, but you have endorsed a statement that says I treated others unfairly. I have not treated anyone unfairly.  So how would you characterize endorsing that statement?  elizmr 02:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you believe you haven't treated anybody unfairly, whereas I believe you have effectively treated others unfairly. It's disagreement. Disagreements exist and processes to resolve them have been crafted since human beings have started to act in concert. Calling it slander has clear legal implications, which is why I said using the term takes the disgreement to a different level. For instance, you are claiming I misused admin privileges by blocking isarig for 16  hours. I don't believe I have, as I have explained on the talk page. If you believe so, then you have administrative recourse within wikipedia. Use it. --CSTAR 02:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever it is, you don't seem to be all that able to give any examples of how I was unfair except for saying that ARmon and I were doing good cop bad cop. I will respond to the other comment below.  elizmr 02:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I said you gave support and legitimacy to bullying and hectoring by isarig and armon. That's an example in my understanding. However, If by example you mean a semantical analysis of the dialogue (based on sequences of edit diffs), yes that's also possible. Neverthess, unless you follow my suggestion and propose an RfC against me, I see no reason to be that explicit.--CSTAR 16:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I have already said I am not going to pursue an RFC against you and have said why.  I will take it upon myself to make sure I do not give the impression of supporting bad behavior in the future.  However, if you are willing to make this kind of personal attack against someone without really providing evidence, just based on a sort of a general feeling that this is the case, it reflects on your civility and personal integrity as a Wikipedia editor and administrator.  elizmr 16:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, elizmr, i think it's reasonable to assume people make mistakes and bad judgements. I recognize that I have made them myself, and when pointed out to me, I usually apologize.  However, it's one thing to say someone made an error of judgement or a bad choice or acted unfairly.  It's quite another to question a person's civility and integrity as you have just done. That is your right of course.  Note that I don't think I've called into question your personal integrity.  If I have, in the flux of argument, I apologize.--CSTAR 16:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, you've signed a statement that says I have treated other editors unfairly. This is a personal attack.  You are unwilling to back this up with any evidence.  I have told you that I have not treated anyone unfairly, and you have said that you disagree, you feel there is evidence that I have, but you are not about to really investigate this to see if you can confirm your general feeling.  In the same breath, you tell me to assume good faith but do not give me the same in return.  I believe that has something to do with civility and integrity, yes.  Please don't turn this back to me.  If you are going to apologize to me, you might apologize for the personal attack.  But, frankly, I'm not holding my breath.  elizmr 17:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I said only that your characterizing my personal integrity is unwarranted. --CSTAR 17:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is getting a bit old, but ok. You have made a personal attack on me which you have signed your name to, I have questioned the accuracy of the attack, you have said it is accurate but are unwilling to provide evidence.  If my vocabulary is not precise here, I apologize.  Call it whatever you want.  Whatever it is, it warrants an apology, and this is not forthcoming.  elizmr 17:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin priv misuse?
CSTAR I am concerned that you may have abused admin priv. You, of course, did not abuse priv by blocking him because he deserved it. However, the edit war had two players. After Isarig was reverted, he pointed out to you that Lee Hunter had also reverted over three times and asked you to apply the admin action evenhandedly. As far as I can tell you did not do this. I do not know all the rules, but I think you have perhaps absued your admin priv here. elizmr 02:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK I responded on the talk page, but let me repeat it here. There were no responses to my 3RR notice, other than armon's accusing me of triumphalism by posting it. Isarig'sblock was for 16 hours; he posted a response about 30 hours after the block went into effect, complaining of unfairness. That is hardly a timely response.  That does not strike me as abusive, but again please dispute this through the appropriate WP channels. --CSTAR 02:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is an appropriate response and do not think you did any of this purposely and given your response I do not feel it would be fair to report you. Howver, after Isarig did point out the unfairness, I feel it wasn't quite right to sign a statement that singled him out for breaking the rule and being uncivil.  Many on both sides were equally guilty of these things.  It seems hypocritical and not very productive.  That's it from here.  elizmr 02:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be said that admins are given discretion, and are supposed to use it. If they do, probably someone will call them 'unfair'. We do however want admins to act as they see best, in good faith. We don't want them to apply some set of rules, mindlessly. And certainly not just to avoid all criticism. Charles Matthews 10:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In this case, I think that CSTAR may have let his POV guide his unevenhanded treatment of one party in an edit war. I'm going on record to say that I don't think this was is an appropriate use of the "discretion" given to administrators.  Especially in light of the fact that he signed a statement condeming the behavior of the individual in question a few days later after it was pointed out to him that he had not been evenhanded.  Human, yes, forgivable, of course, but I think he owes the injured party and apology.  I think he owes me one as well, for signing a statement saying I behaved "unfairly" towards other editors without providing any evidence of any particularly unfair thing that I did, but if you read the above you will see that one is not forthcoming.  This all doesn't put Wiki in the best light.  elizmr 13:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is possible to interpret blocking only one of the parties as "unfairness". It's also possible to interpret it as an exercise of his discretion (judging that Isarig was driving the edit war, so just blocking the major offender) or it could simply have been oversight.  There is no reason to assume bad faith here.  Anyone could have filed a 3RRvio complaint against the other party.  Guettarda 13:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What is your evidence that Isarig was "driving" the edit war? I believe this might be unfounded.  Of course it doesn't really merit all this discussion, but this particular situation on Wikipedia doesn't ring true to me in terms  of the ideals of Wikipedia and I find it very disturbing.  elizmr 13:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Evidence? Absolutely none.  I said that there are other scenarios that you should have considered, other than "admin abuse".  If you chose not to "assume good faith" you could still consider other explanations, rather than immediately assuming bad faith.  And that said, if you were so upset about it, why didn't you report the other 3RRvio yourself (assuming that there actually was one, I haven't looked at the diffs, I'm just going on the word of Isarig, who has shown herself/himself to be an unreliable reporter.  Guettarda 14:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Cole
Do you ever feel like you're banging your skull into a brick wall? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 00:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This article (e.g. Juan Cole) is not salvageable. That's why I proposed writing from scratch one section.--CSTAR 04:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you are correct, and that was why I started the sandbox. Well, maybe it'll work out.  Y quizá los cerdos vuelen!  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No sé si puercos vuelan. Pero huelen. Y este artículo es una porqueria.--CSTAR 18:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * ¡Sí! :) Los "escritores" de este artículo me recuerdan pequeños niños.  (Si mi español no es perfecto, me disculpo, pero mientras leo con frequencia, no lo hablo o escribo a menudo.   ¡Pero tengo hay practicar!)   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * re Quoi faire: Je ne l'avais pas vu -- et je souhaite que je ne l'aie jamais vu !  Que signifie-t-il, qu'il signifie-t-il ?  C'est des déchets.  Peut-être tu as raison en disant qu'il n'y a aucun espoir pour l'article !
 * D'où es tu? Je devinerai de l'Europe, car la plupart des Américains sont monolingues !  A plus tard.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * de l'Amérique Latine.--CSTAR 15:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, je suis de les Etats Unis, mais j'espère que je ne suis pas l'Américain laid ! ;)
 * La page de discussion de Juan Cole est un désastre, les petits enfants combattent encore...devrait nous continuer ? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  01:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * C'est foutu. Peut-être va-t-il falloir établir une sorte de "commission de rédaction" dont la responsabilité serait de veiller sur la composition de l'article. Exactement ce que cette commission ferait, qui ferait partie de cette commission, combien de temps elle durerait etc., c'est pas de tout clair. D'outre, cette solution risque de créer un très mauvais précédent pour Wikipedia. --CSTAR 02:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * PS J'ai l'impression que l'utilization d'une langue autre que l'anglais peut être consideré génant.--CSTAR 02:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, knock it off! -lethe talk [ +] 01:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What did I do now :)?--CSTAR 02:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well mostly I want to complain about conversations happening not in English on my watchlist. I'm not exactly sure what was said, but I have a vague impression that it contains unflattering remarks about Americans. Ich kann es Euch versichern, daß es mehrsprachige Amerikaner gibt. -lethe talk [ +] 02:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Good God. Well the fact that I was born somewhere else (Latin AMerica) speaking another language as native tongue doesn't mean I'm not an American and don't speak english well. Morever I didn't say anything bad about americans. I did say something bad about an article on WP, namely the Juan Cole article.--CSTAR 03:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Time to archive I guess :) --CSTAR 03:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for carrying on a conversation in your archive. Is that bad manners?  Anyway, it's your talk page, you can talk whatever language is convenient. I can't even complain, but I might indulge in some pleasant ribbing.  But I'm drunk at the moment (hint hint) and I thought that something above ( something like "D'où es tu?  Je devinerai de l'Europe, car la plupart des Américains sont monolingues !  A plus tard.")  Anyway, cheers. -lethe talk [ +] 04:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)