User talk:Carbonite/Archive1

High school issue
Hello! I've been wondering about something... the most prominent thing that regulargly gets VfD readers into, well, shouting matches, is the issue of high schools. I believe that you'd agree that high school (or primary school) is not inherently encyclopedic. Yet several people vehemently disagree, and it seems likely that high school articles (and lists thereof) will continue to get added. So I figured that maybe such articles need another venue.

Would you think it feasible to call for transwikiing of high school articles, and related ones? And if so, where? Of the existing Wiki projects, the most appropriate one seems WikiTravel. But on Metawiki, there is talk of Wikiteer, which is to include extensive geographical and sociological information, but doesn't exist yet.

I'd like to hear your opinion on this. I've asked the same question of a couple of other users, so please respond on User talk:Radiant!/Schools. Thank you. Radiant! 14:32, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Please correct
You seem to have placed the page "Khazars in fiction" under the copyright violation category. I am one of the authors of the original piece and of additional original info for the Wikipedia article. Both I and the owner of the website in which it appear have both authorized its use. Please make sure it is restored.--Briangotts 03:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!!--Briangotts 16:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

new vandal
s/he -- i forget the IP address -- did it again. I just reverted his/her edits, but I saw your message to him/her on the user page and thought you should know. Slrubenstein 21:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I am a sysop, but having been the object of some of his/her activity, I couldn't do the block myself. It looks like someone has, though. Slrubenstein 03:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry
We seem to have clobbered each other a few times. My apologies. Chotchki

Moved comment
Greetings. Thanks for your kind words and instruction; if you check the article you questioned I *think* you'll find a more neutral approach now. Sadly, the entire issue of rape, marital rape, and marital rights is sensitive. Wordrider

thanks
thanks for fixing my redirect at Skatalites... I am apparently having keyboarding trouble. Pedant 20:45, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

Re: User:12.75.217.238
I've blocked the user for 24 hours; his/her last edit summary seems to imply an IP block will be ineffective, but that's probably just hot air. Though I can't be around much longer tonight I'll keep watch as long as I can manage. Let me take this opportunity to extend my thanks to you, for your defense of Wikipedia against vandalism and the overflowing offal of VfD. Keep up the good work! :) -- Hadal 04:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

High schools in ...
Not every high school is notable, therefore is not included into the Wikipedia... as clearly seen from the VFD process. How can categories accomplish the same thing as a list when there is not an article for every high school? -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks a lot for helping me with a few notes about better article editing. I am more and more into Wikipedia every single day. --- DeeJay |  Talk 05:36, 15 Feb 2005 (CET)

Question
Is this where I write you a message? What do you think of my idea on the Daniel Pearl discussion page? It relates to Nick Berg too. Please let me know. --laurap414 00:16, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Runtime
The runtime should include commercials. We should be consistent with IMDb. The infobox also is giving info on the first run of the show, not worrying about synidication and such. It should be the complete runtime as it originally aired. – flamurai (t) 03:51, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree with including commercials in the runtime. The runtime should be the actual length of the program itself. You don't include the length of the ads or trailers before a movie, and a television show should be no different. Lost is a good example of the problems that can be caused by including commerical time. If you include commericials, Lost's runtime varies from 60-63 minutes, while the actual length of the show is quite constant (varies by less than a minute). As for remaining consistent with IMDB, I don't think that's really necessary. Only a few shows use the TV infobox right now, so adding an "excluding commericials" statement might be the best way to avoid confusion. Cheers! Carrp | Talk 04:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I think Lost is the exception rather than the rule. Most shows are more consistent with their overall runtime than their runtime without commercials. The problem is how do you determine the actual runtime? (With newer shows it's easy with DVDs, but what about older shows?) Are we going to require authors to sit through and episode with a stopwatch? I mentioned IMDb because it's a source, and we don't want people guessing on Wikipedia. The movie argument is moot because the ads and trailers are tacked onto the beginning on the movie, not during the movie. The runtime should be the time elapsed from the start of the program (in its original showing) until the end of the program. – flamurai (t) 12:14, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * There's a few more problems with including commericial time:
 * It makes the runtime US-centric. Other countries may or may not have advertisements. If they do have ads, they may have more or less than in the US.
 * It's tied to a specific form of media. The first season of Lost will be released on DVD in September, and at that point a runtime of 60 minutes is no longer accurate.
 * It ignores special situations such the episode running ad-free (as 24 has done at least twice).
 * The runtime should be the most consistent value possible. It shouldn't be tied to a specific country, medium or episode. When Lost is produced, its runtime is approximately 45 minutes. Whatever time is added by other parties after that point shouldn't be included.
 * As for IMDB, even it isn't consistent with runtimes. Take a look at two of the most popular shows ever, Seinfeld and the Simpsons . Both runtimes exclude commercials. Other shows such as 24  list the runtime as 45 minutes and additionally list the runtime for various countries.
 * Given all these factors, I think it makes sense that we use the most consistent and logical value, which is the actual length of the episode. Carrp | Talk 13:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all, it's not US-centric, it's wherever-the-show-first-aired-centric. Second of all, there's no problem with it being tied to a specific form of media. These are television shows. The DVD releases are secondary to the original airing of the show. Why do you think they're aired on television first, then later released on DVD? Third, that's more of a reason to include commercial time. 24 runs 60 minutes for both the special commercial-free episodes and regular episodes. Really, the point of the infobox is to present the show in its original form. I don't think it would be a good idea to list every network the show has been syndicated on in the "network" section, for example. You didn't address my question as to what source we're going to use to find the actual length of the episode, especially for older programs. We can't just guess. If you want to sit there and watch each episode with a stopwatch, be my guest. – flamurai (t) 16:10, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, let's step back for second and look at the big picture. Who are the users that will be accessing information on the runtime? They'll be from different countries, some will be have only seen the show on DVD, and many will be viewing the information years after the show is off the air. What runtime value will be the most useful to them? Will a Wikipedian from Australia who rents the HD-DVD in 2009 really be that interested in the original US runtime including commercials? The actual length of an average episode is the most constant value we have. Although we will know the exact episode lengths when the DVDs are released, we don't really need these values for the infobox. Each episode is produced to be approximately 45 minutes. The 15-18 minutes of commercials are not part of the episodes and thus should not be included in the runtime. Carrp | Talk 16:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I give in. I'm just going to say this... don't guess. Wikipedia is a place for facts not guesses. I just don't think "approx" belongs in every infobox. The reason I put that in the HBO shows is because they vary in length by more than a few minutes. – flamurai (t) 16:53, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

VFD nomination process clarification
I would like your opinion about my suggested VFD nomination process clarification. Please see: Template_talk:VfDFooter. Thank you for your time. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Urrbrae Agricultural High School
Hello, i see that you contributed to an article on Urrbrae Agricultural High School and it is not on VfD... unfortunate, but i'd like to invite you to Students wikicity that will welcome that and other similar articles you might want to write. Beta m (talk)

I did not remove the message?
Please use the history tool and compare them :P

I created that article a day ago and though about it. and thought it wasnt necesary moved info to the linked page. As everything on the article is my edit. I dont think it should be a vote issue. --Cool Cat 18:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was merely apologising for my interference ;) --Cool Cat 18:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Shark jumping
Altered the decision. Not sure how this is mergable however! Once you work it out then please feel free to redirect to the merged page. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:54, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
A quick thanks for voting me to adminship. utcursch 08:00, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, clarification
In an edit summary I wrote "wikipedia is not a democracy. statements that are not both true and relevant do not qualify as legitimate objections". That was not directed at you. I meant that to refer to content on the talk page. I'm sorry if it upset you. Kevin Baastalk 21:01, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)

Deletion policy
Hi there, I just found your note on the Deletion policy page and wanted to say thanks for mentioning it. Radiant! 22:24, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Votes_for_deletion/Argentine_Currency_Board
I have noticed your thoughtful contributions to VfD (both ways!). Could I trouble you to take a look at Votes_for_deletion/Argentine_Currency_Board. I am not lobbying for your vote either way, but no-one seems to be looking at this one (perhaps because it is a long article, and fairly technical), and I do believe it is worthy of some serious consideration. Thanks. HowardB 03:29, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Lists of English words of international origin
Help! Xe's putting the dictionaries back in. Uncle G 18:59, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

User:Vaoverland - administrator
Thank you for supporting my appointment as an administrator. I appreciate the pat on the back this represents. It felt nice to read the comments during the voting. Please let me know if you see something I should be doing as admin, as I intend to be fairly passive unless it is clear I should do otherwise. Thanks. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 20:06, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Vandenbr

 * You have already seen this first part.

I am a bit worried about Vandenbr. His (and it almost certainly is an he) contributions suggest a rather prima donna-ish attitude. I have reverted his edits to Trunking, Quality of service and Grade of service on the simplistic grounds that removal of wikilinks is vandalism. All his other stuff was new articles.

Have I been too hard on him in doing that and in the note I left at his talk page? -- RHaworth 07:02, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

On reflection, his error was to copy and paste from the displayed article rather than from an edit box. But he still needs to learn. -- RHaworth 09:28, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

Vandenbr, who is now one of a team, has now learned how to create piped links but is otherwise sailing his own independant way. I have created Deletion policy/Teletraffic Engineering to see what people think. -- RHaworth 03:58, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

List of schools in the United States
I updated VfU summary on this article with these new points: Please review your vote, or at least provide a constructive way to adress these concerns, especially the last one. This is a stock message, but I replied to each voter individually on the VfU page. Thanks in advance. Grue 05:28, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The main concern about the article was its title, but it was originally at the proper title and moved in November, 2004.
 * There are many redirects to that page and there is no way to trace them unless the page is undeleted.

Moby, One-hit wonders in the United States
According to the criteria given on the page, we use the service on Allmusic to look up Billboard. 1999	Listen Now! Bodyrock	 	Hot Dance Music/Club Play	 6 1999	Listen Now! Bodyrock	 	Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales	17 1999	Listen Now! Bodyrock	 	Modern Rock Tracks	26 1995	Listen Now! Bring Back My Happiness	 	Hot Dance Music/Club Play	10 1995	Listen Now! Bring Back My Happiness	 	Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales	39 1992	Listen Now! Drop a Beat	 	Hot Dance Music/Club Play	6 1992	Listen Now! Drop a Beat	 	Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales	38 1995	Listen Now! Everytime You Touch Me	 	Hot Dance Music/Club Play	17 1995	Listen Now! Everytime You Touch Me	 	Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales	26 2002	Listen Now! Extreme Ways	 	Hot Dance Music/Club Play	12 1992	Listen Now! Go	 	Hot Dance Music/Club Play	18 1992	Listen Now! Go	 	Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales	16 1999	Listen Now! Honey	 	Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales	49 2002	Listen Now! In This World	 	Hot Dance Music/Club Play	18 1997	Listen Now! James Bond Theme	 	Hot Dance Music/Club Play	1 1993	Listen Now! Move (You Make Me Feel So Good)	 	Hot Dance Music/Club Play	1 2000	Listen Now! Natural Blues	 	Hot Dance Music/Club Play	11 2000	Listen Now! Natural Blues	 	Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales	6 2000	Listen Now! Natural Blues	 	Modern Rock Tracks	24 1992	Listen Now! Next Is the E	 	Hot Dance Music/Club Play	8 1992	Listen Now! Next Is the E	 	Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales	39 2000	Listen Now! Porcelain	 	Adult Top 40	24 2000	Listen Now! Porcelain	 	Hot Dance Music/Club Play	14 2000	Listen Now! Porcelain	 	Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales	38 2000	Listen Now! Porcelain	 	Modern Rock Tracks	18 2000	Listen Now! South Side	 	Adult Top 40	8 2000	Listen Now! South Side	 	Canadian Singles Chart	3 2000	Listen Now! South Side	 	Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales	4 2000	Listen Now! South Side	 	Modern Rock Tracks	3 2000	Listen Now! South Side	 	The Billboard Hot 100	14 2001	Listen Now! South Side	 	Hot Dance Music/Club Play	16 2001	Listen Now! South Side	 	Top 40 Adult Recurrents	1 2001	Listen Now! South Side	 	Top 40 Mainstream	15 2001	Listen Now! South Side	 	Top 40 Tracks	13 2002	Listen Now! We Are All Made of Stars [Timo Maas Vocal Mix]	 	Hot Dance Music/Club  Play	13 2002	Listen Now! We Are All Made of Stars	 	Adult Top 40	32 2002	Listen Now! We Are All Made of Stars	 	Hot Dance Music/Club Play 19 2002	Listen Now! We Are All Made of Stars	 	Modern Rock Tracks	22

According to this list, only South Side charted on the Hot 100. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:48, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalized VfD
Hi Carrp,

I see you're closing VfDs today, too. I'd take a closer look at Votes for deletion/PJ-Comix; the bolded votes don't match the comments. See this diff; an anon changed a bunch of delete votes.

Cheers, --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * No harm, no foul. I'm always very wary of VfD discussions with such long comments and no delete votes. :) --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Closing vfds as delete
I'm hesitant to say anything, since I'm sure you're acting in good faith, but I'm concerned that you're closing vfd discussions as delete. Is there an administrator you've been forwarding these articles to for actual deletion? I worry that some of these articles might get forgotten. See also Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/Archive/Feb05, where a template to facilitate non-administrators closing vfds as delete was itself deleted. —Korath (Talk) 03:22, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi. I began closing VfDs after I noticed a rather large backup. I work about 4-5 days ahead of the admins so that nothing will get left behind. When the admins catch up to my work in a few days, it will save them time by not having to add the top and bottom templates. Since I haven't been entrusted with making decisions on close VfDs, I only close where the vote is uncontested. Most of these are unanimous deletes, although there have been a keep or two. If anyone has a problem with my actions, I will stop, but I do believe it's helpful. Carrp | Talk 03:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is that administrators working through /Old generally scan through the list, looking for discussions that don't already have the blue background, or—worse—by hiding closed discussions via CSS (putting " " in their monobook.css file). A closed discussion is usually taken to mean "this article has already been fully dealt with".  They're also responsible for confirming that the vfds haven't been vandalized (for example, by someone going through and removing all the keep votes) before they delete the article, so I'm not sure that pre-closing deletes actually saves work.  (I'm not, by the way, saying that this has happened; the ones that I checked on all appeared to be legitimate deletes.)


 * That said, the backlog in /Old is problematic. Vfds whose result is keep, merge, redirect, or transwiki can be closed by non-administrators, and this is much more useful.  Non-delete vfds, I'm told, take significantly longer to close than deletes; this is especially true for merges. —Korath (Talk) 03:55, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * You make some good points. I have no problem with sticking to non-delete VfDs if it will be more helpful. I'm concerned about the backlog and will do what I can to help catch up. Thanks for the insightful comments; it's always nice to get pointed in the right direction. Carrp | Talk 04:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NFL articles

 * "Re: Is there a good online source for game summaries of NFL playoff games?"

I don't really know. Online, I have been looking at the playoff history pages on http://www.superbowl.com/history. But my primary sources have been: Currently, when I've been creating some of those playoff article on WP, I only wrote a 1-2 sentence summary. Zzyzx11 00:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * NFL Record & Fact Book (ISBN 1931933715) I have every edition since 1995.
 * Total Football: The Official Encyclopedia of the National Football League (ISBN 0062701746) There is a chapter detailing every playoff game. But it was published in September 1999 and there hasn't been a revised edition since.
 * The Sporting News Complete Super Bowl Book 1995 (ISBN 089204523X) Obviously now out of print, it included articles on all the championship games.


 * By the way, I am thinking of renaming the playoff articles into something like NFL Playoffs, 2004-05. As you get into the 1970s, most of the playoff games are in December. Zzyzx11 00:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Welcoming
Belated thanks for your kind welcome! I'm still a bit of a cackhanded Wikipedian, but I think my output's becoming reasonably useful. Matthew Platts 06:24, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My adminship
Hi Carrp. I want to thank your for your 'strong support' vote on my adminship nomination. I very much appreciate the confidence you have in me. Kind regards,  — mark ✎ 22:29, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

re: VfD closings
Good evening. I noticed that you closed a number of the old VfD decisions on the 1 March page. On several, however, you didn't actually delete the article. May I ask why? Rossami (talk) 03:53, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that might be best. Unfortunately, it actually adds a step when someone closes the discussion but doesn't or can't actually delete the article.  It also significantly increases the chances that the final step will get lost in the shuffle.  It wouldn't be such a problem except that this "block-compress" error is creating a significant backlog of articles that are deletable but do still have blue links on VfD/Old pages.
 * So what to do for now... I hate to ask you to undo all your work from the past few days.  I have not disagreed with a single one of your decisions.  But other than reopening the discussions (removing the "closed" header and footer), how can anyone find and complete the all the deletions you tagged but couldn't complete?  I was finalizing some last night (by searching on your user name) but don't have time to do them all.  If we don't fix them quickly, other admins are going to rely on the fact that the discussions are marked as "closed" and archive off the Log pages.  Rossami (talk) 14:07, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we're all cleaned up then. The ones that are left are all  because of the block-compress errors and have been tagged as such.  Good luck with your admin nomination.  Rossami (talk) 05:57, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFA edit counts
I was just wondering, how are you getting the edit counts, now that Kate's tools is down? – ABCD 01:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks – ABCD 01:50, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Carbonite, I find that Kate's edit count tool is working here. Joyous 01:32, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:47, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Congrats! Use your powers for good. Joyous 23:14, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Congratulations; I'm sure you'll do great. I'll just keep having to remember Carbonite is Carrp... Jayjg (talk)  17:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * you are most welcome. there is a lot to be done, I suppose, but being an admin does not, of course, sentence you to do slave labour, I suggest you just continue doing what you feel like doing. best regards -- dab (ᛏ) 21:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, and you are very welcome. -- M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) (w) 07:05, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Glad to see you made it. I am happy to have supported :-) Jordi·✆ 11:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * And congratulations from me too! You'll make a great admin. ;-) SlimVirgin 02:39, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your support on WP:RFA. – ABCD 15:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification on the intent behind tags. --BaronLarf 12:49, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Hey Carbonite, thanks for voting for me in my adminship nomination. I very much appreciate your support. Best, SlimVirgin 02:30, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

RFA for ABCD
Tim Starling has shown that I am not a sockpuppet on my RFA. In light of this, you may wish to change your vote. Thanks. – ABCD 00:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide
Are you going to be mediating the article? If so welcome, the discussion currently is tense and revolves why I am such a horrible person, who I really am etc. I clearly know this isnt very tastefull. Just wanted to let you know I dont like it and I can bear with it. I tried introducing my mediation format earlier on which like any idea I presented is been declared bad. Chack it out for me and tell me what you think: User:Coolcat/mediat. --Cool Cat My Talk 00:25, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, thats what I have been doing, I am no sure what he presented, I wont filter out what he is saying from the insults he is throwing at me. It is even difficult for me to archive the material.

Congratulations
Congratulations on becoming administrator. --JuntungWu 06:50, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User 70.105.206.111
Hi. Thanks for blocking 70.105.206.111 - that was starting to get me down. Just before you did that, they logged in as Musichopper (the name of the site they've been spamming all day) and stuck a threat to vandalise my user page again (as far as I can make it out!)on the talk page. Just wondered if you could have a look at that, as I'm not exactly sure what to do... Cheers. Anilocra 15:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll rest easy now... Anilocra 16:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Unless, of course, Musichopper gets another name....  —msh210 16:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks from me, too, for blocking them.  —msh210 16:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

TDC's 3RR block
Thank you for acknowledging that I was being goaded into a 3RR, but shame on you for not blocking Chameleon for the exact same thing you blocked me for. TDC 13:39, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

User:SUCK MY SOCK
Hi. I noticed you just blocked this vandal, a recreation of a nasty vandal from yesterday. Any chance you want to help delete the articles he created? --InShaneee 14:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Putting up an NPOV tag doesn't count against 3RR
If people remove an NPOV tag when there is unresolved discussion in Talk, then replacing it is correcting vandalism and can't be considered under three revert rule. Thanks for your unbiased concern. User:STP


 * "Vandalism is indisputable bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." Vandalism "Often, authors can view their articles as being NPOV, while others disagree. That an article is in an NPOV dispute does not necessarily mean it is not NPOV, only that someone (with the tact and wit to properly link to this page from it) considers it to be not NPOV." NPOV_dispute If I tag an article as NPOV, the POV editors do not have a right to remove my tag until their POV edits are resolved. To remove the NPOV tag that I have a right to place on the article, is a form of vandalism, just like removing my comments from the Talk page. User:STP

Thank you
Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers for good not evil. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Images and media for deletion votes

 * I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicite photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another matter. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. ~ Achilles † 01:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sock-ster
This new user (Sock-ster) has blanked Community Portal, National Left, Village pump, and replaced them with the infamous Image:Autofellatio_2.jpg. Also made bogus votes on VfD. All within an hour of creating the account. Can you or some other administrator deal with this intentional disruptor (who is obviously much too skilled to be a newbie)? Plus check out their user page. --Dmcdevit 23:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Sock-ster has been blocked permanently for his vandalism. He's certainly a sockpuppet, although I'm not sure of whom. Thanks for the heads-up and happy editing! Carbonite | Talk 00:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I like the speedy service, you are doing a good job! --Dmcdevit 00:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I can't take the credit for this one. He was blocked a few hours ago by another admin (Violetriga). Thanks again! ;) Carbonite | Talk 00:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't even bother to check! :) Oh well, thanks for responding to my ignorant posts. Where do I find out if someone has already been blocked? --Dmcdevit 00:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The best place to look is here: Special:Log/block. Not always an easy page to find the first time, but still very useful. Carbonite | Talk 00:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: User:STP
Hi, you may want to see and add your comments to Requests for arbitration Thanks. IZAK 09:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

thank you!
... for supporting my recent RFA, and the kind words; I'll do my best at the new gig. Being able to fight page-creation vandals is finally something I can do. Keep up the good work and happy editing! Antandrus 02:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Coolcat's 3RR
Hey Carb, which article did Coolcat revert four times? You didn't mention it in your block notice. In the future, when you block a user for 3RR, can you make sure to specify the article explicitly? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 00:49, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * No that's cool, I just couldn't tell which article from his immediate contributions list, so I was curious, as I'm kind of involved with a separate issue with the user surrounding Template:Kurdistan/Pictures. I speedied it, but then changed my mind about it, and I just wanted to make sure you weren't counting that as a revert on his part.  Cheers. DropDeadGorgias (talk) 02:19, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda
Could you please vote on the proposed move Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda → Alleged links between pre-invasion Iraq and Al-Qaeda? The vote is here. I am opposed to the move since "alleged" is POV and prejudges the evidence. Thanks. ObsidianOrder 11:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

recording vandalism
Good afternoon. You recently blocked anon user:206.80.199.222 for vandalism. Looking at his/her contribution history, I strongly support your doing so. It raises a maintenance question, though and I'd like your thoughts. You obviously reviewed the user's edits and reverted some of them. I assume that you reviewed all of them to see if any had been missed. When I found his/her vandalism on a page on my watchlist, I also went to the user's contribution list and reviewed all the contributions. It would have been more efficient if I had known that you'd already done the review. Is it appropriate to record on the user's Talk page that "all edits up to have been reviewed"? Would it be effective? If yes, should we suggest it on the Admin Noticeboard or is there someplace better to discuss it? Rossami (talk) 19:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My RFA
Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Although the voting period just ended with a 14-8-2 vote, I will admit once and for all that I used it more as an evaluation of myself. Being promoted would have been a plus. I was more interested in who voted, when they voted, who would change their votes and when, and the comments I would receive. Hopefully I will correct the main weakness that was raised by those who voted oppose -- that I was too eager to put articles on VFD. Also, I will try to interact more with those Wikipedians who did not vote at all.

As for next month, I don't know if I will nominate myself again. I might not think about it until somebody else puts me up there on RFA at a later date. Eventually, I see myself as an admin, especially as the number of articles and users continues to grow. Thanks again and good luck at improving this vast archive of free knowledge. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

you support "conspiracy theory" titles?
Hello Carbonite, if you have the time I was wondering if you could let me know what your exact thinking on the "conspiracy theory" title issue is? Are some subjects "truly" conspiracy theories? Is any potential ambiguity with "conspiracy theory" in a title not a big deal? thx. zen master   T  01:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, you are right about the vote and section header shouldn't say "non-neutral" as that isn't neutral (I apologize), but isn't that the same problem as "conspiracy theory" being in a title? ;-) zen master   T  01:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Troll
User:216.186.53.4 (talk • contribs), whom you threatened to block permanently, is still trolling. See this, SqueakBox 18:32, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've blocked the IP for one month. Carbonite | Talk 18:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
Thank you for voting on my RFA. Have some pie! I was pleasantly surprised by the sheer number of supporters (including several people that usually disagree with my opinion). I shall do my best with the proverbial mop. Yours, Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:17, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush
True, but tags makes it easier to locate usch pages. More people watching it etc. You may want to reconsider. ALso automated bots can notice the removal of the tag and flag it properly. There are lots of things tags can help. Not necesarily preventing it but allow us to know about it. --Cool Cat My Talk 16:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * In the case of the Bush article, it's probably on more watchlists than any other article. Looking at the history, most vandalism is reverted within minutes. I could see those tags perhaps being useful at a seldom viewed article, but this one is so mainstream that tags just add clutter. Just my opinion, anyway. Carbonite | Talk 16:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Thanks for your support for my adminship. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:15, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Moving comments?
FYI,. No, I don't get it either, and therefore. Yours, Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:34, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

verses
Hiya,

you recently voted to delete John 20:16

Uncle G has made a wider proposal covering a much larger group of verses.

would you be prepared to make a similar vote at Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, which covers the full list of verses in Uncle G's suggestion?

9 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)

Blocks
Hmm, well for the sake of something or another, I'll point out that I think your block was quite unjust: I was removing a personal attack from my talk page, which I thought I was allowed to do. William M. Connolley 14:45:52, 2005-07-10 (UTC).


 * I didn't count that block because it wasn't for a 3RR violation. The four blocks I referred to were:


 * 00:13, 24 May 2005 Geni blocked "User:William M. Connolley" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3 revert rule WP:3RR)
 * 04:22, 22 April 2005 Geni blocked "User:William M. Connolley" with an expiry time of 12 hours (3 revert rule)
 * 19:31, 14 April 2005 Geni blocked "User:William M. Connolley" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR)
 * 17:10, 9 April 2005 Jnc blocked "User:William M. Connolley" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Greenhouse effect)


 * I felt it necessary to address the incorrect statement made on the RfA. Respecting the 3RR does not appear to be a reason to support your adminship. Carbonite | Talk 14:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * In regard to my block, I would hardly consider the comment you moved to be a personal attack. It certainly wasn't so offensive or vulgar that it warranted evading your 3RR block. Carbonite | Talk 15:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. recognize you have expertise in climate models and memorizing IPCC Reports was deliberately offensive. William M. Connolley 21:18:35, 2005-07-10 (UTC).


 * If you found that statement offensive, you had every right to move or delete it, after your 3RR block had expired. Instead you chose to circumvent your block by switching to another IP. This isn't something that happens by mistake. You had to take steps to log out and change your IP.


 * Err well no, not quite, I did it from work. Well, never mind, we're not going to agree on this. William M. Connolley 21:40:10, 2005-07-10 (UTC).


 * This discussion really gets to the essence of why I opposed your RfA. It seems that when rules get in the way of what you think is right, you ignore them. It's not a terrible attitude for an editor to have, but it doesn't work for an admin. Carbonite | Talk 21:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Outcome of WMC's RfA
Carbonite, given your response to me and Uncle Ed on the talk page, you might want to call by User:Cecropia (talk • contribs)'s talk page too. -Splash 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * And User talk:Ed Poor's too, since Cecropia has deferred to him in this case. -Splash 17:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Making RfC for Germen
I'm putting together an RfC for Germen's behaviour on the Islamophobia article and associated pages. Since you have been involved in disputes with this user before I was hoping you might be able to contribute to the draft before I publish it on WP:RFC. Axon 12:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

World Community Grid
'''Hello, before you read on I would just like to say that I have so far only posted this to a limited amount of administrators for consultation. If you have any objections to its wider distribution or suitability for Wikipedia please let me know.'''

Hi, I would just like to invite you to find out about the World Community Grid Human Proteome Folding Project. This is a purely philanthropic project and supported by a "blue chip" corporation in IBM. There is an ability to join a team once you have downloaded the software and another user has already established the Wikipedia team.

I would like to emphasise that I do not want to pressure anybody into feeling obligated and I understand the limited computer resources/access available to some. Feel free to pass this message on and thank you very much for your time, Mark83 21:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Significant objections have been raised to this. Mark83 10:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

3RR on Human rights in the United States
These users have refused to behave in good faith and refuse to adequately discuss their edits on the Talk Page, which is why they are being reverted. At least one of the users engaged in the revert has been screaming about "Enviroknot" and appears to be a sockpuppet of the deranged user Yuber. I am also taking note that rather than sending such notice to ALL who have been involved, you are singling me and only me out.

This is unfair and completely out of bounds in regard to Wikipedia policy.

Your comments have been noted as has your bad faith.Existentializer 16:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I noticed that you were coming very close to violating the 3RR. In fact, it appears that you've already violated it. Since you're a rather new user and may have been unaware of the 3RR, I warned you instead of blocking. I'm not sure where you see "bad faith" in those actions, but you're entitled to your opinion. Carbonite | Talk 17:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You are an asshole
I just want you to know that. I make a good-faith response to abuse of power and you ban me in response? You are a complete asshole. -Ni-ju-Ichi
 * Thank you, Enviroknot. That .1% of doubt I had is now gone. Carbonite | Talk 20:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not Enviroknot. Your treatment of me and others is beyond abusive. Cut it out. --Ni-ju-Ichi
 * We obviously differ on these points. Please direct your comments/complaints to the mailing list . Thank you. Carbonite | Talk 20:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Done
Hi Carbonite, I've reinstated your original block. I wish admins wouldn't undo each other's blocks. I've done it a couple of times where it's been a very clear case of a mistake, but by and large, I think the original admin's judgment should be allowed to stand. People who disagree are at liberty to argue about it. Anyway, in this case, your block was clearly correct. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:52, July 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I really do try to be 99.9% sure before I block anyone, especially for sockpuppets. I agree about about not undoing other admin's blocks and thanks again for taking a look. Carbonite | Talk 22:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

24 Hour Page Protection
Howdy, Carbonite. I noticed by your comment here that you have placed a 24 hour Page Protection on the Vietnam Veterans Against the War article. When you next address that article, could I impose upon you to take an extra moment to review the recent edit history for that article? The present revert-war has been going on for a week, and began on (16:38, 27 July 2005) with this edit by user TDC here. This edit of TDCs appears to me to wipe out dozens contributions by a dozen editors since January of this year, while at the same time introducing POV content that was long ago removed or cleaned up. I (one of the editors of that article) feel TDC has misrepresented his edit when he describes it as an attempt to remove "potential copyvio material." He has undone spelling and grammar corrections, removed images, internal and external links, citations, quotations, and even headers and formatting. Stuff that can't possibly be copyrighted.

I guess I'm asking for a second opinion. It is my opinion that if you suspect content of being in violation of copyright, you move that portion to the Discussion page, without stealthily vandalizing the rest of the article. As someone not invested in that article, perhaps you can tell me if I'm missing something here. Much appreciated, 165.247.213.194 08:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I will certainly take a look. Thanks for the heads-up! Carbonite | Talk 10:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo
He already unblocked himself. 24 hours, 60 hours, makes no difference. --TJive 00:43, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Excuse, me TJ. I had thought you somewhat more reasonable. -St|eve 00:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I did unblock myself because I was in the middle of saving a comment to Talk:Vietnam War . While I appreciate the thrill of blocking people as much as anyone, Id suggest you reserve such for those who are destructive and obstructing to the normal functions of Wikipedia. I unblocked myself previously to file WP:RFAR against CJK. I am now considering adding TJive to that file. -St|eve 00:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * My being, or not being, reasonable has no bearing on whether or not you are violating policy, evading blocks, and abusing your powers, which you clearly have been. If you believe that by filing arbitration against me you will somehow damage me you are welcome to it, but policy is completely with me on this.  --TJive 00:53, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Carbonite, to be clear, I think that sysop rights and adminship can be considered separately. And it looks like you favor choice #3 (Steve resigns the adminship) while I favor choice #2 (Steve hands over his keys: gives up sysop power but retains admin title). Not arguing any more, that's done with: just trying to clarify where we differ.

I think we are ultimately on the same side in this: wanting the good of Wikipedia. We only differ on how to proceed from this point. Uncle Ed 20:25, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest you take it to the ArbCom. I understand your point (re: discussion on Angela's talk page) but that doesn't mean I agree with it. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:28, August 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I had hoped to avoid bringing this to the ArbCom (they seem very overworked right now), but I think it's the only option at this point. You may be correct that there isn't consensus to de-admin Steve. However, there is consensus that his actions were completely unacceptable. The truly commendable action would be for him to ask to be de-admined and then to reapply through RfA (either immediately or at a later date). Carbonite | Talk 12:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Person You Blocked for 24 Hours is Already Vandalizing Under Different IP
Thank you for blocking 67.182.157.6 a few hours ago. He has come back under the IP 172.199.120.111 and has resumed his reverts and vandalism. For evidence that this is a sock puppet of his, see the RfC on his behaviour here: and the RfA about him here:  (See the section "DotSix".) You will see at the first of these that he frequently uses IPs in the range 172.19*.* (which are AOL IPs). Maybe it is not possible to block a whole range of IPs, but if it is, could you do so? (Assuming you find the evidence of sock-puppetry at the RfC convincing, of course.) Thanks. --Nate Ladd 06:37, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

RfA
Thank you for supporting my RfA. I will do my best to serve the Wikipedia community as an administrator. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
Thank you for voting to support my RFA. I've been promoted, and I promise to wield the mop with good faith, patience, and fairness... except when I'm exterminating vandals with the M-16 recoilless nuclear Gatling mop. --malathion talk 08:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Func's RfA :)
Carbonite, thank you for supporting my RfA! Incidentally, are you an explosive, or a fictional metal alloy in the Star Wars universe? ;-)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e, ) 03:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Most of the time, I'm the latter, although sometimes I slide towards the former. Congrats on your adminship and I'm sure you'll do a great job!

Thanks
Thanks for noticing the vandalism on my page. I really, really want to block that IP for a couple of days. Accursed AOL addresses. --Golbez 17:11, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem! I've often wanted to block an AOL IP for longer than 15 minutes. Maybe it's time for me to contribute to that proposal that's always floating around. The one about blocking IPs but allowing signed-in users to edit. Carbonite | Talk 17:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Heya
Mel Etitis changed a closed RFA. The bureaucrat had taken his decision based on the votes as they stood. A note at the end pointing out the erronous numbering would be ok, but changing the page to something the bureaucrat did not decide on is a bit iffy. Kim Bruning 19:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I agree with you that changing the RfA totals isn't ideal. Although users can look at the page's history, they often won't. Still, blocking Mel for 24 hours was way out of line, in my opinion. He wasn't even changing support or oppose votes. Mel's actions were certainly in good faith since all he was attempting to do was to correct two neutral votes. Carbonite | Talk 19:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * In a closely contested RFA like FeloniousMonk's was, people have already tried "neatening" the RFA before, perhaps altering things in ways they probably didn't mean to. I don't want to go into the diff, look at all the red votes and say 'This comma is ok, that comma wasn't, but this removal of the word "strong" is definately out of line.' Nuh uh. I don't want the headache. If you modify anything other than your own votes or comments, that's just bad. Even if you didn't mean to do harm, even if you're pretty sure that this particular edit is harmless... or maybe that one? It's unpatrollable. Kim Bruning 19:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I basically agree with you on those points. The process makes sense, but the enforcement seems far too strong in this case. What I disagree with is the blocking of Mel for 24 hours for what was essentially a misguided attempt to correct the RfA. If you had instead put the above paragraph on his talk page, I think he would have stopped. If he continued, WP:AN/I could have given you a few more opinions on the matter. Carbonite | Talk 19:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I very politely asked him to Not Do That, at which point he could have dropped me a line to ask what's up? He didn't do so, and just reverted a revert. AFAIK, it's ok to block up to 24 hours when people do that. Kim Bruning 19:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Mel could have done things differently also. I just think he would have received the message with a 1 hour block. In any case, it's over now and I don't see much point dwelling on it. Carbonite | Talk 19:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Shorter blocks are ok? I agree that's much better. Excellent! :-) Kim Bruning 20:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

As I'm preparing a complaint, I'd be interested to know which bit of the blocking policy covers this. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

racism
uhh, what are you talking about?

Many Thanks
Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 18:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

User: Carbonite - I see where you participated in the matter concerning Abraham Lincoln's sexuality that was discussed and voted upon on Talk:Abraham Lincoln. There has been a lengthy and exhausting discussion surrounding this exact same issue at Talk:Elvis Presley and the archived Talk pages as well. Because this has the potential to create a new standard for what is acceptable sources, I thought that you might want to be aware of it.

If the policy consensus you and others arrived at on the Abraham Lincoln issue is set aside in the Presley article it will result in new ones for countless others. I think your group discussion that arrived at a determination of what constituted a proper source should be defined by the Wikipedia community and set as firm policy which would go a long way in helping to substantially reduce the tiresome and repeated edit wars. Thank you for your interest. Please note I have left the same message for others who worked on this matter. Ted Wilkes 20:07, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

pretexts of jtdirl
Dear Carbonite, In am interested in why you are so willing to protect Jtdirl. Btw, they were not my edits. (Check e.g that IP address that mede the last reverted edit. You must stretch your imagination if you think that same person could edit from different continents simultaneously.) One reason for my interest is that at the same time, Jtdirl locked pages. Apparently he gets very much leniency for his violations here, those incidents show. As to wikilawyering, you of course realize that the claim above "revert was vandalfighting" is one base mode of wikilawyering. As the violator has got some people here to do his wikilawyering, facts to contrary deserve to be presented too. Could you kindly ask Jtdirl and his lawyers to cease wikilawyering? 217.140.193.123 14:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism
Hey Carbonite, have you seen the nonsense going on a Terrorism? User:Zephram Stark and an IP sockpuppet parade have reverted the article over a dozen times now! I'm trying to get some wider interest in what's going on, and since you've edited it recently I thought I'd let you know. Jayjg (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Now Zephram has reverted you, with a deceptive edit summary. Jayjg (talk)  19:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Table namespace
— Omegatron 01:06, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Jtkiefer's RFA
Thanks for your support on my RFA. Jtkiefer T - 05:07, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories
Sigh. Kevin Baas is at it again. Jayjg (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a discussion on the title dispute of 9/11_Bush_Administration_complicity_theory, at Talk:9/11_Bush_Administration_complicity_theory. Jayjg has apparently choosen not to discuss the title, and has not disputed  the standing points in the discussion.  You should have, ofcourse, discussed your changes which are clearly significant (there is no bigger change one can make than deletion) and which you knew to be controversial before making, and I still invite you to discuss the issue at Talk:9/11_Bush_Administration_complicity_theory.  If we both use reason and exchange our assumptions and information, i'm sure we can reach a solution that we both find reasonable. Kevin Baastalk: new 01:38, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * This is really an organizational issue, not one of content. I agree with Raul's merging of the various 9/11 theories pages. Over time the information had spread to so many different pages that it's become nearly impossible to maintain. Most were poorly written and seldom edited. Much of the information overlapped and keeping it all in sync was a nightmare. Let's put out effort into improving 9/11 conspiracy theories into a featured article rather than to re-enter into a stalemate. Carbonite | Talk 01:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If it is not an issue of content, then do not delete the content. If it is an issue of organization than reorganize.  If you support a merge/delete, then you should vote for it on the proper merge/delete request page, and if there is no merge/delete request, then you should make one. Kevin Baastalk: new 01:59, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

About my RfA
Hi Carbonite. You chose to be neutral on my RfA, but I appreciate the fact that you made your concerns public. I just would like to assure you that I will still work my best on Wikipedia, in order to prove wrong any fears you may still have about me. Best regards, Sam Hocevar 08:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zephram Stark
I have filed Requests for comment/Zephram Stark. Please contribute to it. – Smyth\talk 18:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories
You wrote "rv to last version by Raul654; that was a major overhaul for the better, please don't simply revert" in an edit summary. Notice major overhaul. the part following, "for the better", is clearly subjective, and clearly disputed, and therefore has no bearing on process. The fact that it is a "major overhaul", however, does have bearing: major overhauls, esp. on controversial articles, should be discussed before being made. If they are reverted, they definitely should be discussed, and they definetly should not be re-reverted. Kevin Baastalk: new 02:30, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BOLD. Raul took the time to do what should have been done long ago by merging various substandard 9/11 articles into one. He then spent a good deal of time editing the merged article. There's no reason to have poorly written articles about 9/11 all over the place when one well-written one will suffice. If you dislike the current content of 9/11 conspiracy theories, edit it or discuss it on the talk page. Carbonite | Talk 02:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Please re-read what I wrote above. Kevin Baastalk: new 02:49, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * And see Template:controversial.


 * I'm missing your point. Are you saying that a template should prevent progress from being made? Perhaps you could restate? Carbonite | Talk 04:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

RfD
Sorry if I got cranky, but there's been one person a day filing requests saying "no incoming links", and yours was the proverbial straw. Noel (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. I should have been more descriptive in my request. I can certainbly understand how annoying that would be. Keep up the good work! Carbonite | Talk 18:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for being so incredibly understanding. Anyway, I looked at all the redirs to that page, and its talk page, and deleted a number (including flocks of various Talk: page redirects that had been left behind by rename wars). I mention this because I decided to keep one of the two you listed, as it seemed a possible search/duplicate article name, but I wanted to reassure you that far more than two were dispensed with! Noel (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Whiny sniping
I'm not hiding who I am. I redirected my page so that no one got that impression. I had good reason for changing my user name. However, you don't have good reason for sniping at me. I'm not attacking R. fiend or anyone else. He's being opposed for precisely the reason I suggest, not just because he's a deletionist but because he's been an unpleasant one. I daresay that if I ever had the temerity to offer myself as a candidate for adminship, my many, many good edits would be ignored and I'd be "personally attacked" too. I've been unpleasant from time to time. I'm not very good at the passive-aggressive style that's favoured among editors here. Frankly, though, I'd rather some good-humoured rough and tumble than the snidery that some think passes for creating a collegial atmosphere. Happy editing. Grace Note 23:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with opposing someone based on their contributions, but saying "You are a rather unpleasant, pisstaking deletionist..." crosses the line into a personal attack. I believe that any sniping I did was well justified. You have been very unpleasant and to be completely honest, I was rather glad to see you (Dr. Zen) leave back in March. I was rather disappointed that you reappeared as Grace Note after leaving your "farewell message". It appears that you have become a bit more civil. Honest enough for ya? Carbonite | Talk 01:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I've never much liked you either, those few times I've noticed you about the place but I don't feel the urge to vandalise pages by removing your comments (please don't do that again -- if you have a problem with a comment I make, come talk to me -- I'm very reasonable and approachable) nor to chase you around checking your edits. In fact, I'm perfectly happy to get on with you, because I'm here to build an encyclopaedia, not get all gushy over you. Still, let's hope next time you snipe at me, you've something a bit more constructive to say, and that we have a more pleasant interchange.Grace Note 01:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As I responded to Ryan below, I had no intention of removing your comment (nor any memory of it). Quite likely a misplaced click on the "rollback" link combined with one of the many server error messages. I do apologise for unwittingly removing your comment. However, I would appreciate if you would assume good faith instead of accusing me of vandalism and stalking. A little civility can mean a world of difference.
 * Anyway, what really annoys me is that you (and others) spend a great deal of your time railing against a cabal that doesn't exist. Admins are volunteers and don't deserve grief from you or any other editor who feels that it's necessary to question and criticize their every decision. Should you choose to personally attack another editor again, I will call you on it.

As it seems unlikely that we're going to agree, I suggest that we end the discussion here. Carbonite | Talk 12:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Why did you revert - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bartlett_High_School%2C_Bartlett%2C_Illinois&curid=2638081&diff=23254967&oldid=23252892 ? You arn't supposed to use rollback in content disputes, you know ;).... Ryan Norton T 01:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I see the diff, but I have no recollection of using rollback there (or even intending to edit that page). The only thing I can think of is that I clicked rollback rather than the "contribs" link next to it. With the many server errors that have been happening lately, I probably just closed the window after and never realized I had made an edit. I apologise for any confusion. Carbonite | Talk 10:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

TLAs
A proposal has been made at Requested moves to move TLAs from AAA to DZZ and other related pages to Wikipedia namespace. Please visit Talk:TLAs from AAA to DZZ for the related discussion. -- Francs2000 | Talk 00:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Re your continued picking -you have qestions? OK I have answers/
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWatts&diff=23521236&oldid=23519711

your latest post on the RfA page: You added this in bold: '''Gordon's blatant refusal to let the subject drop despite many requests from other editors leads me to agree with Carnildo. Due to his extremely poor behavior in this RfA, I would oppose Gordon in any future RfA. Carbonite | Talk 11:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)'''

I replied, and since I express myself, I will merely quote and source it:

Carbonite, you are mistaken: I indeed did "let the subject drop": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GordonWatts/RfA&diff=23523348&oldid=23522577#Admission:_The_RfA_can_legitimately_vote_me_down In this post, I state that I will not ask to be promoted if the vote goes against me; That being said, your attitude here is a chief reason why many leave Wikipeida [sic, spelling, lol]. If, however, you meant "refusal to let the subject drop" to mean "the RfA process is broke" as this "subject," then, yes, you're right: I am not letting this drop at this time: " If the rights of one are violated, the rights of all are at risk ." --Thomas Paine --GordonWatts 13:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll add one thing: Look, I'm not perfect, but I came here to try and help people, which I've been doing pretty well, in spite of walking into the middle of many a contentious edit war:

However, I'm probably qualified for a few extra tools of Admin (no big deal) -I'm not applying to be Steward or Bureaucrat, lol, but TWO THINGS:

Academic: If I'm really not qualified, then change the policy guidelines, OK? Social: You do not need to make such a big deal out of this. Trust in God, for God's sake, and also realize this is only a volunteer organization. God really is trustworthy, and this really is just an unpaid job, and I'm not perfect, but I am probably correct all here.--GordonWatts 13:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * From my page:
 * Gordon, there's not much else to say at this point. You're convinced that you're right and deserve to be an admin, despite dozens of editors explaining why they opposed your RfA. You have refused to drop the matter and have flooded Wikipedia with your complaints and arguments. If you're truly determined to become an admin, now is the time to start acting like one. Move on and put this behind you. Or perhaps, just enjoy editing and forget the whole RfA ordeal. Carbonite | Talk 13:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for not getting mad at my frankness; I admit, I may even be too busy in my personal life (cleaning room; looking for job) to be a good admin, so it may be moot. All this will blow over. Thx again for your feedback all the same.--GordonWatts 14:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

--GordonWatts 14:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The United States Declaration of Independence
In the United States Declaration of Independence, "Jefferson did not just assert one thing after another; rather, each term logically implies the others." "Take 'unalienable,' for example. A piece of property can be given away because you would still be human even without it. Property is alienable. 'Unalienable rights' are those which are inherent in human nature so that it is logically impossible for a human to be without them. If we have these rights by being humans, then we are obviously all equal in regard to them. Conversely, anything we have just by being human is unalienable. 'Their creator' is whatever endowed us with this nature." "If 'happiness' were defined as this or that, here, there would be no liberty to pursue something else. It follows logically that 'happiness' must necessarily be whatever a human pursues, and 'pursue' must mean whatever humans do in regard to happiness, and 'liberty' is just this unalienable right to pursue. And these linkages come because each of these concepts already involves the others. Since the linkages do not depend on something else, they are 'self-evident' and that is ultimately what truths are and mean, and we are human and are the ones saying this." ~ The Focusing Institute (Introduction to Philosophy)

This is one of 18,000 hits on Google for Unalienable vs. Inalienable, but you ignored them all to destroy this beautiful and true article about Unalienable Rights as used in the United States Declaration of Independence to redirect it to the article for Inalienable Rights which puts Life and Liberty in the same classification as Palestine's desire for Mediterranean property and Iran's desire for nuclear fuel cycles.

The article you redirect people to, who want to know what Unalienable means in the Declaration of Independence says, in so many words, that the self-evident, unalienable parts of humanity are essentially the same thing as Iran and Palestine's pleas for material commodities. The article then says that the concept is an example of the Naturalistic fallacy, which essentially states that pleas for material commodities based on moral grounds are meaningless. Somewhere in the argument, the simple fact is lost that the Declaration of Independence: is not a plea, does not base its arguments on moral grounds, does not seek material commodities, and has nothing to do with the current usage or meaning of the word Inalienable.

The Criticism section of "Inalienable Rights" basically says that rights founded upon moral grounds are a joke. I couldn't agree more, but the United States Declaration of Independence is clearly not founded on moral grounds. Read it!! Did you redirect people from the Declaration of Independence to something that calls it and its fundamental concepts "largely groundless," "non sequitur," "an example of the naturalistic fallacy," and "a more elegant version of 'Because we said so'" because you hate the United States of America, or because you have personal issues with one of the editors of Unalienable Rights? --Zephram Stark 17:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I created the redirect because that was the consensus of the AfD discussion. Personally, I had no horse in this race. I've never edited the articles in question and I certainly don't hate the US. Carbonite | Talk 17:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Am I reading this correctly? Are you really admitting that you destroyed an article without knowing any of the issues involved?  --Zephram Stark 17:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No, that was not what I said at all. To reiterate: I closed the AfD discussion. The consensus was to redirect Unalienable rights to Inalienable rights. Thus, I created the redirect. As I had not edited the articles in question, I was able to close the AfD without bias. Carbonite | Talk 18:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You wiped out an entire article to create that redirect. When you say that you "had no horse in this race," I take that to mean that you didn't know any of the issues involved—-you were just following orders.  Was it the right thing to do?  Are the founding principles of the United States really "an example of the naturalistic fallacy?"  You didn't even compare the articles before making your decision.  Just like the officers at the Nuremberg Trials, it doesn't matter to you if what you do is patently immoral as long as it fits in with the agenda of the group in power.  As someone with Jewish blood in me, I have to ask myself and my society, at exactly what point did we become the Nazis?  --Zephram Stark 18:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * A few points:
 * Please stop using colored fonts. They are only appropriate in your userspace.
 * "I had no horse in this race" means that I didn't stand to gain based on the outcome. It does not mean that I was uninformed. If you don't know what something means, don't just assume.
 * Since the redirect was the consensus of the AfD discussion, it was the right thing to do.
 * This is an encyclopedia. Your comparison with Nazi activities is offensive and absurd. In addition, it violates Godwin's Law.
 * I'm tired of this conversation and see little need to further justify the redirect. If you believe it was inappropriate, please raise the matter on WP:AN/I. Otherwise, cease the discussion.
 * Carbonite | Talk 18:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

A few counterpoints:  --Zephram Stark 20:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Since you are not Minister of Appropriateness at Wikipedia, I'll use whatever colored font I think is best in discussion.   I've been told by several people that a slight color in my post makes threads easier to follow.
 * 2) I still take "had no horse in this race," to mean that you didn't know any of the issues involved, because you gave me no alternative in your discourse above. Besides, if you knew the issues involved, or had even compared the articles, I doubt you would find any similarity between the the founding principles of the United States and naturalistic fallacy, or any of the other subjective assertions of the Inalienable rights article.
 * 3) You keep throwing this word "consensus" around. I do not think it means what you think it means.  On the deletion page,  User:Septentrionalis did not seek consensus or even call a vote.  The user made a statement, labeled it a consensus, and asked for support.  Is there any way anyone could give their unbiased opinions at that point with out making User:Septentrionalis angry?  In a real consensus, "those who wish to take up some action want to hear those who oppose it, because they count on the fact that the ensuing debate will improve the consensus" ~Wikipedia.  As I said on the deletion page, I for one, would like to see a separate definition for how Unalienable is defined in the Declaration of Independence.  It certainly has nothing to do with the "theological principles," "non sequitur," or "naturalistic fallacy" of the Inalienable rights article.  The Declaration of Independence quite specifically says that Unalienable rights are self-evident.  (And no, "self-evident" of the D.O.I. does not mean "because we said so.")  Did you or anyone else consider the statements made by the dissenters?  Did you compare the articles involved?  Did you notice that no consensus was reached or even attempted before you destroyed the article on Unalienable Rights?  Please, read what "consensus" means before using that term again.  Thank you.
 * 4) Use of the word "Nazi" does not violate Godwin's Law; it supports it.
 * 5) According to the WP:AN/I it is appropriate to give the administrator every chance to reverse his mistakes before bringing them up on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and other relevant places. Thank you for allowing me that opportunity.


 * As I stated above, I'm tired of this conversation. I will not respond to future posts regarding the redirect. If you believe I acted in an inappropriate manner, bring it up on WP:AN/I. Otherwise, please do not post in my userspace again. Carbonite | Talk 22:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Heck on Wheels
User:Heck on Wheels recently left a message on his talk page asking why he was blocked. I replied to him informing him about what a WoW account is. However, it seems to me that he might not be a WoW sock puppet. The name "Heck on Wheels" might simply be a reference to automobiles. Such terms are quite common.

By the way, how did he manage to leave a message anywhere at all when he was blocked? Can blocked users edit their own talk pages? — J I P | Talk 07:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

FOOTBALL
What's your opinion on the Pittsburgh Steelers, Baltimore Ravens, and San Francisco 49ers?

C2 aaron 16:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for your support in my RfA. In fact, strong thanks for a strong support (I only got a couple of those). -R. fiend 17:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Mohegan Sun
Just wanted to let you know that the Mohegan Sun vandal is back this morning. It might be worth protecting the page again. | Keithlaw 13:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

RfAR
Thanks for letting me know. Of course, I have recused myself from the case, but I am quite interested in it. You might want to get others involved as well, like Smyth, Calton - really anyone who was involved in the article and dispute. Jayjg (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've already posted a message on Talk:Terrorism since that's where the most damage has been done. That's probably a good idea to let editors know personally, too. Thanks! Carbonite | Talk 18:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Joke nom
Oh, come on, leave it on for 30 mins, have a sense of humor :) Borisblue 19:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * RfA isn't a joke and it shouldn't have fake nominations posted on it (maybe on April Fool's Day). I'm not saying that it wasn't humorous, but it couldn't stay up. Carbonite | Talk 19:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

sock puppet allegation
User:Whitfield Larrabee is claiming you're a sock puppet in the Talk:Bill Frist discussion. -- FRCP11 16:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * there's an ongoing discussion about a bill frist quote. since you just removed the quote, i wondered if you might want comment on the issue in talk. Derex 17:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * ah, i see you already did, even as i was writing. thanks. Derex 17:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration subpage
Hi. Each of the current candidates in the Arbitration Committee election now has a subpage for people to ask questions and have a discussion with the candidate. It's linked to below your statement on the candidate statements page. Hopefully, this format will be more productive and less disruptive than the "endorsements/disendorsements" approach that caused so many problems last year.

I took the liberty of copying your candidate statement unaltered to your subpage. Feel free to elaborate on it at whatever length you wish, without the concern of space restrictions as on the main candidate page. I encourage you to put your subpage on your watchlist and discuss arbitration issues with the community as part of your campaign. --Michael Snow 04:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

OwenX's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA. Owen&times; ☎  22:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that they were.

I ment that I was recomending them to be made as it makes it easier for everyone  ☺ A d a m 1213  ☺ |talk  04:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You could of fixed my few mistakes or let me do that. not remove what I said as a suggestion and stop me editing the page. The purpose of have info on the idea was to get it done. People have to remove vandalism quickly, this would speed it up. This would be only for vandalism templates.

Well, it wasn't really a matter of fixing a few mistakes. The concept of auto-signatures for templates just isn't feasible. As I explained on your talk page, it makes the templates' behavior non-standard and also faces the huge problem of having thousands of templates already transcluded. I removed the info from the Vandalism page, because it gave instructions for a system that's not in use and basically can't be used. I really do appreciate the effort you put into this, but unfortunately, it's just not workable. Don't worry, though, there's lots of other stuff to do here! Carbonite | Talk 04:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA
I would like to thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I am most honoured by the trust that has been placed in me by yourself and other members of the Wikipedia community, especially since I did not conform to the standard edit-count criteria usually expected of administrator candidates; I am especially grateful to you for your trust in my ability to become an administrator. I promise to only use my administrative privileges to assist the community in doing good work, and also to be calm, considerate and careful in working to make Wikipedia a better place. I look forward to working with you on Wikipedia in the future. Best regards, --<font color="#906040">NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 04:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting that vandalism to my user page. I appreciate it. --Canderson7 03:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No reason for another section the same as this, thanks for doing so on mine too. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on my RfA!
Thanks for your support of my adminship!! I was surprised at the turnout and support I got! If you ever have any issues with any of my actions, please notify me on my talk page! Thanks again! Ryan Norton T 03:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

My autosignatures work
I have made a vw series same names as test but autosignatures. -- ☺ <font size="4" color="#FF9900">A <font color="#00FFFF">d <font color="#0000FF">a <font color="#00FF00">m 1213  ☺ |<font color="#C0C0C0">talk  05:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

0101YAUws
You blocked User:0101YAUws (talk • contribs), marking it as a vandalbot account. This is not the case. The 0101 series of accounts, of which there are now a coouple dozen, are apparently part of a class project and have been making meaningful contributions to Honk Kong related articles. I have unblocked this account and left a welcome message. Dragons flight 14:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I actually just replied to you matter on WP:AN/I. This account was created during a vandalbot surge, and since it was virtually identical to a random name, it got blocked. I'm glad you were able to get a legitimate user unblocked. Good work! Carbonite | Talk 14:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for your vote in my RfA. I'll do my best to live up to the wiki standards and be a good admin!

--Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Closing AfD discussions
When closing AfD discussions, please remember to include both the at template at the top and the ab template at the bottom. If you forget the ab template, subsequent non-closed AfD discussions will appear closed, even though they aren't. — <font color="#CC0000">J <font color="#00CC00">I <font color="#0000CC">P | Talk 17:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, must have missed one of the "ab" templates. Which AfD was it, by the way (not that it really matters)? Anyway, thanks for fixing it! Carbonite | Talk 17:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)