User talk:DESiegel/archive1

'' This is an archive of User talk:DESiegel. Please do not change it in any way. DES (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC) ''

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 20:21, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Template messages Cite sources

First Amendment
I have reverted First Amendment to the United States Constitution back to the compromise version posted by DESiegel at 16:56, Feb 24, 2005. I have placed a discussion regarding the differing views regarding the content that should appear on this page on the article's talk page. Please view this page and the discussion there prior to making any substantive changes to this page. I am attempting to resolve this dispute with DESiegel's compromise version, and hopefully avoid formal dispute resolution (ie. page protection, mediation, arbitration, etc.). (sent to all users editing the article since Feb 10, 2005: user_talk:DESiegel, user_talk:Pythagoras, user_talk:Kenj0418, user_talk:66.169.84.88, user_talk:68.209.177.180, user_talk:205.210.232.62) Kenj0418 07:03, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Prior restraint
I believe you're the author of most of the content in this article. I recently rewrote Censorship in the United States without being aware of the content in prior restraint. The U.S.-specific content in prior restraint should probably be merged into Censorship in the United States. In the meantime I added a "see also" wikilink. Mirror Vax 01:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Having fun?
Well stop. -- Netoholic @ June 28, 2005 23:11 (UTC)

Failed TFD is not consensus for use --- it is just a lack of consensus to delete. Please stop using spoiler-other, because you can just as easily use spoiler-about and say the same thing effectively. -- Netoholic @ June 28, 2005 23:18 (UTC)

It is surely not consensus for non-use. I intend to continue to use it where it seems appropriate, and if you change these uses simply to make a point about about your preference for spoiler-about, to revert thsoe changes. DES 28 June 2005 23:28 (UTC)


 * That's silly. Just help me keep the template space as simple to use as possible.  There are too many random templates already.  -- Netoholic @ June 28, 2005 23:49 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I think that, while you can often do the sme thing with a carefully worded spoiler-about, spoiler other is a valuable tool in the proper circumstnces. i want it in my toolbox, and i intend to use it ehan i think it is appropriate. If you alter those uses solely to make a point that you dislike spoiler-other I will revert you. i now must go to the bother of puttign every page wher i use spoiler-other on my watch list. Why are you putting me and all of us through this? DES 28 June 2005 23:53 (UTC)
 * For all the new users coming here, so they have a simpler environment. -- Netoholic @ June 29, 2005 00:27 (UTC)
 * I really don't think "choice of three, explained on a good doc page" is significantl;y harder than "choice of two". In any case, the consensus seems to be against you. DES 29 June 2005 00:56 (UTC)


 * It isn't a good doc page (stricly speaking, my formatting changes made it more clear), and the distinction between the spolier-X templates is far too subtle and unimportant. -- Netoholic @ June 29, 2005 02:13 (UTC)


 * You've stated the above belief countless times, but you've yet to explain why your opinion should override a contrary consensus. What was the purpose of initiating a formal TfD process if you didn't intend to respect the outcome (unless it was the other outcome)?  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 29 June 2005 03:06 (UTC)

CSD proposal
Hi there! I was wondering about your comment re:bands and clubs about other ways of asserting significance. Could you give an example please? Yours, Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 4, 2005 19:22 (UTC)
 * That is correct. Ouch. Several weeks of discussion and nobody mentioned point five and six on bands. Okay, since the proposal has been up for a very short time, I'll reword it to include all of WP:MUSIC and contact the voters about it. Point five is easy to add; would you agree that point six is impossible without attracting media attention? If not, please give me a hand in suitable wording. Yours, Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 4, 2005 21:04 (UTC)

Block
Hi there, I've unblocked that IP now. Sorry you ran into that message, but we've been having lots of vandals coming from AOL recently. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 5 July 2005 04:00 (UTC)


 * Re: an autounblocking, that's an intriguing idea. I'll have to think about whether it would work as a feature request. I could see that it would weaken the vandal fighting ability, because if there was an active vandal, someone logging in legitimately from the same proxy/IP would consistently unblock it, which would take away a crucial capability for the admins. Fuzheado | Talk 5 July 2005 04:15 (UTC)

By chance I came across your user ID in relation to problems with autoblocking and AOL. This happens to me regularly. There has been some discussion of solutions, and your ideas would be welcome. Please see my user page -- User:WBardwin/AOL Block Collection -- for a history of my experience and the comments of administrators. Thank you for your interest in this problem. WBardwin 06:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Possibly.
I'll concede the point entirely if a style guideline is created that makes people use that under the lead section. However, there is now a problem of the heading underline cutting the TOC, making it look unprofessional. If these things can be sorted I will drop all my objections to the template, and apologise for losing perspective on the whole issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 5 July 2005 04:06 (UTC)

1911 Encyclopædia Britannica
You wrote, on the talk page: I removed a manually inserted Category:Possible copyright violations from the article. If someone thinks this article indeed violates a copyright, tag it with the copyvio template. -Poli 07:54, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC) You might have let me know, since I made it quite clear why i had inserted the tag rather thn the full template. But since you insist, the template will be used. DES 4 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)


 * I did post it in the article's talk page, I suppose I should have posted it on your talk page, too. Well, the process for possible Copyright violation problems in Copyright_problems makes it clear that the ((copyvio)) template should be used. Manually inserting the category was only half-way on the process and got no solution within the 11 days it remained that way. Only minutes after you tagged it with ((copyvio)), the talk page had 2 comments about it, and it was removed, as you can see in the article's talk page. The copyvio makes it much easier to find.-Poli 2005 July 5 04:10 (UTC)

TOCright
I personally think the current version of Terri Schiavo is one of the best examples of the proper use of {TOCright}. Hope you agree.--ghost 5 July 2005 05:47 (UTC)

Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3
PBurka pointed out that an important omission from this proposal: a band could meet WP:MUSIC criterion #5 (sharing a member with a famous band) and still be speedily deletable by this criterion. I've added a sentence to the proposal to reflect this: it now reads ''An article about a musician or music group that does not assert having released at least one album, nor having had media coverage, nor having a member that is or was also part of a well-known music group. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead.'' Please consider if you support this new wording, and change your vote accordingly. Yours, Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 5, 2005 10:00 (UTC)

duplicated content
Hi - For some time I've been trying to help chase down how articles end up getting duplicated, as happened recently by this edit of yours. Do you remember exactly what happened? I think there's generally an edit conflict window involved, but if you could remember exactly what you did afterwards (perhaps copy, paste, back button, etc.) it would be very helpful. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) July 5, 2005 18:02 (UTC)


 * I have several times, including I think that edit, made an edit and gotten a "no response from the wikiserver" message. After that I usually click "back", and find my changes still on the screen, when i usually click save again (after copying my text to a local file in case of loss). Sometime i then get an edit conflict, at least once apparently with myself. When I do i make sure that my edits are properly included in the upper edit box, and click save again. i admit that i havn't been checking if the upper box includes a double copy of the page or section. Most of the time this has happened has been on section edits, but than by far the most part of my edits are section edits.DES 5 July 2005 18:26 (UTC)

Image:The Dark Tower.jpg
You asked if Image:The Dark Tower.jpg was a bookcover. It is, for The Dark Tower VII: The Dark Tower by Stephen King. DarkTower.net states at the bottom of its page "All trademarks and copyrights owned by their respective owners. Visitor-submitted comments are owned by the individual who provided them. All other contents copyright © 1997 - 2005 TheDarkTower.net. All rights reserved. Please read our privacy policy. Interested parties can read the colophon. All excerpts from The Dark Tower are copyright © Stephen King." Endlessmug 05 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)

Image:Skheadshot.jpg
Image:Skheadshot.jpg is from stephenking.com and it is his press photograph from the "press bio & photograph" section. Here is a link the source page. I've seen that picture (and the original photo on the king page) in many of his books as well as other places (idk if that helps or not). Endlessmug 05 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)

Recent changes on Template talk:Merge
You made an edit with no edit summery. When i did a diff, it shownd the only change beign the removal of gkhan's remarks, it did not show them being inserted eslewhere. It also did not show any new commetns from you. Either the diff was in error or I mis read it badly, or possibly your edit didn't do what you intended it to do. Sorry. i should have checked with you and assumed good faith. DES 6 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)


 * This is the "diff" page that you referenced. Please scroll down.


 * I didn't include an edit summary, because I posted replies in two different sections. I'm sorry if this contributed to the confusion.


 * I accept your apology, but I was aware of the fact that you made an honest mistake (and didn't intend to remove my comments.) No worries.  :-)  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 6 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)

Stop
Stop with the trolling and tattling, and grow up. You're more interested in harassing me than anything else. -- Netoholic @ 7 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)


 * None of my comments on this proposal, nor on your actions can properly be desceibed as "trolling". And when a person under mentorship for, among other things, actig provacatively and precipitiously and not communicating enough with the community makes what I think is an improper revert on a project page, then politely calling this to the attention of a mentor is hardly "tattling" in any improper sense. If Raul or the other mentors don't want to hear about things like this let them say so, and i won't bother them again. Letting other people involved in the situation know what is going on is hardly "tattling" in any sense that I would feel a need to avoid.
 * I have not been "harassing" you. I have not been following your contribution log, nor visiting pages because you did something to them. I have been involved in both the CSD proposal and the Template:TOCright discussion on there on merits, and i was involved in both before I was aware of your participatiuon. I do disagree with soem of the substantive positions you have made, but only because I hold other veiws honistly, not because they are opposed to your views. I do feel you acted imporperly on the revert. You may well have a case that new proposals should not be added after the vote has started. taht could be debated, and if there is a general agreement on that point I will accept it. I don't think that is nearly as clear-cut a reule as you seem to think. But even if it is, I don't think the way you dealt with the situation was a good idea. DES 7 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)


 * My mentor has spoken, and said the edit summary alone was enough communication on my part. Now, leave me alone.  -- Netoholic @

CSD proposal
Hi there! Regarding your suggestions... I've been thinking about them. There are three things wrong with the original proposal. The first is that it would technically apply to any speedy criterion, including patent nonsense and vanity. Your rewording fixes that. The second is that it is written as a limiting amendment to other proposals. That is a problem because it means that all people who voted on those earlier proposals might not get what they voted on. The third is that, technically, it's not a criterion for speedy deletion since there is a waiting period. So I'm going to reword it a bit to make it stand on its own. Thanks for your feedback, and if you have concerns please tell me. Yours, Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 7, 2005 18:07 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. Please check it! Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 7, 2005 18:46 (UTC)

CSD P1 redirect
''You just changed the redirect on Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/P1 in suich as way as to make it point to the revcised proposal P1B. P1 is still a live proposal, please don't hide it by accident. There have been so many reverts in this area that I don't want to simply revert your change here. DES 7 July 2005 21:14 (UTC)''
 * I only pointed it at where its target redirect (then Expeditious deletion) went - janitorial work, nothing more. I have no opinion where the redirect should point, so long as it's not a non-functional double. —Cryptic (talk) 7 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)

Image:Skheadshot.jpg
He didn't. Feel free to remove the tag if you want. The template states "It is believed..." -- so nothing is set in stone here. I just figured, when you put a picture on the open web, under a url with your name in it, you probably use the materials on the website to to sell more books and you'd expect your picture to be copied on the web. If I had the time, I'd type some letter to the webmaster. I think Wikipedia has a template for stuff like this--Muchosucko 21:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC) (copied here from my user page)

Wheel of Time
Look at the timestamp. I'm just getting started. :) &mdash;Lowellian (talk) 23:48, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

True History
The link you gave me for book categories was red. You're right, I think the book's designation as "crime" is subjective. Is there one for historical fiction?

Lapsed Pacifist 01:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

If you want to revert it, I'll leave it alone.

Lapsed Pacifist 02:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Aubrey-Maturin
You're welcome, and thank you for putting in all the work to pull this together. I just made a fairly major change to the linking -- hope it meets with your approval. I'm double-checking the date policies, since I see you removed some that I added back in. I might post a change shortly, if I was clearly wrong.--SarekOfVulcan 02:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you already re-fixed the dates. Sorry.

Template:Advert
Since advertising is not a speedy criterion, and this template is promoted for usage on several people's toolkit templates, I've reworded it to become a cleanup template instead. Please consider if you wish to change your vote on WP:TFD now that the template has changed. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:28, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the input regarding the stub tag at the Sam Seder article. I'll remove the stub tag. =) ZachsMind 11:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

WPSS-cat
I will wait for the input of the template's creator, since the usual is for templates such as these to be discussed for some time before they are implemented, something which did not happen in this case. The message you posted on the Talk page is suitable, and we can carry on the discussion there. Cheers. --Sn0wflake 22:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Epilepsy
A ceiling fan is a prime suspect all right. The speed at which it revolves will mean that the light behind it will flash through the blades at a one twentieth of a second sometimes. That is the sort of speed needed to trigger off an attack. I certainly would strongly advise to place fans where no light is flashing near it (either natural light or a lightbulb). It is a classic example of a trigger of photosensitive epilepsy. Anything that reflects very fact movement and on-off-on-off light changes at a rapid pace is dangerous. I had a fit as a child and fell into a fire and got one of my feet very badly burnt. So I know how dangerous fits can be. (I also once punched a DJ in a niteclub who kept strobe lighting on for over a minute. I stormed up to his box, told him that he was quite literally endangering my life and that of everyone in the niteclub, and punched him in the face. The police were called. When I explained what had happened, they pointed out that he had broken the law and wanted to know if I wanted him charged with reckless endangerment!)

Fear ÉIREANN \(caint) 00:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad the police took a reasonable view of the matter. Thanks for the exchange, and I'm sorry if I came on too strongly. DES 00:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

reply
replied at Wikipedia_talk:Kick_the_ass_of_anyone_who_renominates_GNAA_for_deletion_before_2007.


 * I have already made appropriate comments on the appropriate pages. Read them.
 * I removed your VfU for identical reasons as above
 * Please take note of the warning at Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion that I posted earlier.

Sorry about being like this. It's kinda tricky. I'm doing my best ^^;;

Kim Bruning 02:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not to anyones advantage for this to be seen by a wider group at this point in time. Once again, see: ForestFire, this procedure is still applicable to wikipedia as far as I'm aware. Kim Bruning 02:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I am currently on irc, it might be a good idea to get your third opinion there. However, as far as I'm aware I'm following policy. I will also delete the RFC. You may at your option get a steward to temporarily de-admin me, or open an RFAr. However this might leave a rather sticky situation on-wiki with no admin looking after it. Please please PLEASE read ForestFire, and understand the implications before you proceed. Kim Bruning 03:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Please, stop calling attention to the forestfire. I want it to die out. We can discuss this at a later date. I'll also be glad to discuss details with you on my user talk or on irc right now too. Note that Forestfire supercedes CSD by quite a margin imho, as far as preventing damage to the wiki is concerned. Now please stop and think, before you act again. Thanks. Kim Bruning 03:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually there are (or were) at least 6 pages involved (not counting talk), and over 50 users , though depending on how you count, now over 8 pages, partially due to you I'm afraid. Please slow down and read carefully. Part of what causes a forestfire is overhasty reactions and a failure to think first. forestfire!=vandalism. As there have already been 3 long VFD flamewars spawned in quick succession, there is no reason to believe that these would not simply have carried through to undeletion. The other things you tried would give trolls handholds again. When there's a forestfire, try to keep things limited to a single page. Don't try to spread things out like you'd normally do. That's what caused the situation to start up in the first place, you see. Kim Bruning 03:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

To weigh in briefly, I tend to think that, although we want to keep the GNAA article, we can largely do without actual GNAA members. Not that we should actively drive them off. Just that we shouldn't treat them as lovable old coots who can be reformed. If they're being dicks, we should crack heads. Good show, Kim. Snowspinner 03:35, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * But but but but, I'm trying to be the *nice* person around here ^^;; Kim Bruning 03:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

So far as I can see, the people whose policy pages were deleted were long established editors here, not members of any vandal group. Am i mistaken? DES 03:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes and no, these people know me, and I know them, and we trust each others' judgement :-) . We've all been trying to reach the same objective dealing with a persistent troll+vandalism situation. I'm certainly going to do my best to talk with all of them by this evening (UTC) with a little luck. I'm sure there's some things I could have done better, and some things that I've done right. :-) Kim Bruning 03:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Bureacrats is ok, though I'm not sure what they can do. Personally I've been trying to find an arbitration committee member, to make sure I'm doing the right thing, but they're all in bed at this hour, I think. :-( Kim Bruning 03:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we've both been doing some quick reflex actions to cover perceived problems. Sometimes it can't be helped. I think the situation is mostly under control now. *cross fingers*. Thanks for letting me get some sleep :-) Kim Bruning 04:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Quick descision, long tail
I'm exhausted...., Ta bu shi da yu dropped by just a moment ago. I took the time to give him a quick timeline.

See User_talk:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu for details for now.

And now off to bed! Kim Bruning 04:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Bio-book-stub
Just a little thought about the stub text: I think it's a bit unwieldy (try reading it aloud, and not to speak of the double usage of biograph...); wouldn't it be easier just to say something to the extent of: "This article about a book which is either a biography or an autobiography is a stub...."? THX for creating the stub, anyway, great idea :) Lectonar 11:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Much better now; sorry to have bothered you ;-) Lectonar 06:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Yug Purush
I didn't create this article, I simply added the speedy delete template to it.

db tag
Thanks for the suggestion on the db tag. I'll make use of it now. ElBenevolente 00:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

VFDs
Could you please review how to correctly tag VFDs at WP:VFD especailly concerning the tag. Thanks! Sasquatch&#08242;&#08596;T&#08596;C 02:23, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Once you've created a vfd page, use ~ . It creates a nice header so that when you list it on the VFD log it doesn't cause any conflicts. Always glad to help out so if you have anymore questions, feel free to ask me. Regards! Sasquatch&#08242;&#08596;T&#08596;C 02:29, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

VFD for Tekken characters
Although I admire your determination to clean Wikipedia of unecessary pages, it seems to me you are not very knowledgeable about the history of Tekken's characters (correct me if I'm wrong). therefore, your reasoning that characters in a computer game (most would refer to it as a console game) do not need individual pages is, to say the least, ill-informed. its an insult for all the people who pored their hard work into these pages and, for the most part, provided good information for you to vote to blanket delete them all, even if you think you're doing the right thing. please read the articles you are voting to delete next time (again, correct me if I'm wrong), because if you did, you would find a wealth of information there spanning 6 major games that could not possibly fit coherently on a single List page. if you are able to revert your vote for delete, i urge you to do so. Bubbachuck 23:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Quit putting Tekken characters up for deletion! --Dangerous-Boy

Your deletion for Tekken characters was outline. Perhaps we should delete Soul calibur ones as well? --Dangerous-Boy

Actually a better place to bring this up is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games which I have already done. --Dangerous-Boy

Frederica Santos
I disagree, I think that writing scientific papers is an indication of notability. Feel free to VfD it if you want. JYolkowski // talk 22:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

deletevanity
Yes, I was unaware of nn-bio because it was never listed on Template_messages/Deletion, so two IRC users and myself created the new template. As I understand the Wikipedia policy, Deletion_of_vanity_articles, articles that do not assert the notability of the subject are "vanity". I've considered rewording the template to deal with groups of people, like bands and so on.

I wouldn't mind redirecting to nn-bio, but I like the wording of the dv one better. I think I'll fix the wording of dv to adress the concern you brought up about bands and other groups, then copy that into nn-bio and redirect the others. --malathion talk 16:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

If not all people agree with the official policy, they should post their objections on the talk page of the policy and try to get it changed there. But until it is changed, it's policy elsewhere. I've voted in the TfD to keep the template. --malathion talk 16:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

&#123;{blanking}}
Hi, DES. Just a thought, when a user blanks a VfD page, the best template to use is &#123;{drmvfd}}, with &#123;{drmvfd2}} and &#123;{drmvfd3}} as followups. These have far more meaning for a VFD page! Cheers, [[smoddy ]] 16:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletions
First of all, let me be honest and preface this by mentioning that I was not totally in favor of the new Deletion of vanity articles criterion for speedy deletion. That said, the policy states that "articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered." Otherwise, "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead."

I will admit that since I saw the VFD tag on Brandon Barnes that I automatically assumed it was borderline without reading them carefully. However, Matt Deckard is different because Fedoralounge.com and Lottaliving.com are real web sites and being a moderator on those forums could still be debatable whether or not they are significant. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

vfD
Hi. I see that you have spoken against Tony Sidaway and his "pro-school" cohorts. Would you agree that they have taken to bullying against school deletion voters too far? Look at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Gwinett_County_Public_Schools. I've been called a liar in no uncertain terms who deliberately misquotes, when I obviously did not, and been painted in the worst possible light there. My only crime? Voting against schools. Oh, they thought it fair to remove what I say when I stated very firmly that Tony is elitist, rude and blatantly misrepresenting me. This is getting unbearable and too political. Do you have any solutions against this? Please advise. Mandel 21:50, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe you're the wrong person to approach, since I just realized you stated that you've been in Wikipedia for a fairly short period. I've been in Wikipedia for some two years.  That Wikipedia has an "active policy that any actual school is inherently and automatically notable" is not true, rather it is an illusion that "school inclusionists" have created in their argument in order to mislead, basically newer Wikipedians, that they should vote in favor of school articles.  The guideline schools is inherently pro-school and has been criticized by many Wikipedians (see talk page). In the past, school articles have been treated on a case-by-case basis, stating that this school is notable, that is not, etc.  Some survive, some do not. Unfortunately, the case now is that any school article - substub, below-par writing - will survive, mainly because school inclusionists have multiplied themselves many times over (via sockpuppets?  I don't know).


 * Secondly, their rudeness is appalling. In the VfD, Tony Sidaway insults my intelligence palpably, and when I resort to arguing my case, a cohort of his m

inions swoop down to attack my statements. If this doesn't amount to bullying, I don't know what does. You probably seen something like this before. Stick longer and maybe you'll find out more. Mandel 22:50, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Bah, mainly to find out if Tony Sidaway has been adopting the same attitude with others who voted against schools in VfD. Obviously you're not an admin - I know that.  From your remarks, it seemed you have been.  If you've voted for them or hasn't been harassed, then ignore my comments.  Keep up the good work at Wikipedia. Mandel 23:09, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

"TOCleftist and rightist"
Thank you for taking the time to explicate so carefully and even-handedly. You make me feel that I'm in the company of adults again. --Wetman 09:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

TOCright
''Why did you but the TfD tag back on TOCright less than a month after it was voted to be kept? DES 13:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)''


 * Because Raul654 listed it on WP:TFD. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Editing Help GOMS
Hello, you responded to my question. I figured you might get the message faster if I posted here. It's in GOMS, I was pretty done with thinking by then : ). Indo

Thanks
For trying to help me out. The John Ford thank you. --Maoririder 18:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

SfD
You missed at least one step, check the instructions for Stub_types_for_deletion again. (SEWilco 19:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC))
 * Oops, I missed the step you did. You indeed did add the templates to sfd-current.  (SEWilco 19:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC))

Speedy templates
Thanks for the tip. Will do! - Lucky 6.9 19:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Maoririder's templates
User:Maoririder has created even more templates than you already listed. You listed mountain-stub, Oregon-stub and Kansas-stub, but he has also created restaurant-stub (usable as a daughter of food-stub and corp-stub and as a split-off from food-corp-stub), fictional-place stub, MainePBS-stub, PBSKids-stub, Basketballbio-stub and Football-position stub. Aecis 17:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have listed them for discovery. I don't know if they need to be deleted or cleaned up. I could use restaurant-stub (after clean-up ofcourse) in my efforts to clear out the categories for food-stub and corp-stub. Basketballbio-stub needs to be merged into hoopsbio-stub and Football-position into Amfootball-stub. MainePBS and PBSKids can be nominated for deletion. Fictional-place might have a place on Wikipedia, but I think that could best be discussed on the proposal page. Aecis 18:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * And another one: Knife-stub. Aecis 18:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

All of the templates of have done should be away to make them correct for use on Wikipedia. --Maoririder 18:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I like the idea of trying to be sensitive to this person's feelings, but disrupting the site? Heck, we have plenty of real trolls who can do that. :) I only wish that the light bulb finally comes on above Maoririder's head since cleaning up is really becoming a chore.  Sigh...we persist. - Lucky 6.9 18:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, aside from his knife-stub template, at any rate. Hopefully he can develop into a valuable contributer. We can but try. --Scimitar parley 18:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I'am really sorry everyone but templates really sorry and the articles need big cleanup and expansion. Sorry again hope we can all work together. --Maoririder 18:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Votes for deletion/Democratic Ideals
Hi. I see you are responding to the claim of 5 delete and 4 keep votes on Votes for deletion/Democratic Ideals. However, if you look there are 6 delete and 3 keep votes. You might assume that the rewrite comment was also a vote but 5 to 4 is inaccurate. (Wile did not bold his delete vote and it is getting overlooked. Also note that two of the users just started in July at the time of the voting.)-  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  19:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You are hereby quoted. :) Thanks for the note.  I'm actually less concerned about the rewrite vote and more about the possible sock-puppets.  I'm inclined to believe the deleting admin verified votes prior to deletion.  Either way just wanted to have the facts out there. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  20:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/Vorkosigan Saga Inconsistencies
I wasn't intendign to shout. That was a typo, or perhaps i should say thinko. I usually start VFD page entries with a bolded vote, so I automatically typesd thre quotes at the start, then i decided to put my comment before my vote for once and failed to remove the bold makrup at the start. Sorry. DES (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * My edit summary which you are referring to wasn't meant seriously, hence the smiley :). Thue | talk 20:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Robert Diamond VfD
"Are you sure your vote on this VfD was what you meant to write?".
 * I screwed up. I've changed my vote to keep, which was what I really meant. Thanks for pointing that out! -Splash 20:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

TOC Discussion
''The default is thst the TOC appears after the lead section, and before all other sections, left aligned, with whitespace to the right of it. By using TOCleft or TOCright it is possible to have a "floating" ToC, where the article text wraps arround a left-aligned or right-aligned TOC. We are hoping to develop consensus for an MoS entry on when and how to use, and when not to use, these templates.''

Thanks for clarifying. Is this proposed as a new option for users to select in their Preferences, OR as a change to the current Preferences default? Or is the vote whether to keep the templates available instead of them being deleted? Or is the vote whether to keep the additions to the MoS instead them being deleted? As soon as I understand I promise I'll vote :) -- Sitearm | Talk 17:35, 2005 August 5 (UTC)

Voting done -- Sitearm | Talk 17:58, 2005 August 5 (UTC)

TfD closures
Hi, I replied on my talk page Dan100 (Talk) 15:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Replied back on my page Dan100 (Talk) 15:37, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * ...you can probably guess Dan100 (Talk) 16:07, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Undeleted. My laptop battery is about to die so I'll sort the archives out later Dan100 (Talk) 16:21, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Template:DeleteBecause
While I understand your reasoning behind moving the template, it might have been more prudent to discuss the move before breaking quite a number of pages put up for speedy under that template. For the time being, I have recreated the template at the original name so that we don't have to fish through the articles looking for those that were broken. You might also want to note that the template your moved is named specifically on the WP:SD page. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:09, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, I hadn't seen the TfD discussion on nn-bio. I still think its an incredibly clunky change though.  What I was referring to as broken was any page were the DB template had been used; they all displayed 1. Redirect db-reason.
 * Thanks for fixing it! I know I have a lot more to learn about the way the software works; I wasn't aware that you could redirect a template and still have it operate, so I didn't think to look for the double-redirect.  .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:36, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

templates
DES,

You shouldn't rename or move templates: Create standardly-named redirects if you want to. All alternative names should redirect to one template, it doesn't matter what it is called. By moving things around you then create double redirects and cause an unnecessary pain in the arse. Dunc|&#9786; 23:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

More on templates
Well, I'm just as happy whatever the main template is called, as long as I can use dv. :-) Thanks for keeping me updated. --malathion talk 23:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Delete
Hello, DES. After review of the relevant discussion (I admit, I only scanned through it last time), I feel that this should undergo community debate first. I would recommend posting it on the Village Pump, and wait for replies at Template talk:Delete. We'll see what happens after a week or so. How's that sound? BTW, what are you proposing it be moved to? Template:Db-db? Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

renames of speedy deletion templates
Now that the TfD on nn-bio has been closed I have renamed all the speedy deletion templates to names that start with "db-" as discussed in that TfD discussion. I have also cleaned up all double redirs and fixed all coumentation pages I know of. The only template not conforming is delete because it is currently protected. I hope this meets your concerns in this matter. DES (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, much less confusing right now. I think it's better to keep Template:delete as it is, since it's a bit of a special case. I would have also left Template:deletebecause or renamed it to Template:db, but the current name of Template:db-reason isn't that bad. --cesarb 00:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Maoririder RfC
I've initiated a Request for Comment concerning Maoririder that can be found here. Thought you might be interested. --Scimitar parley 18:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Templates in Templates
In general, (we talked briefly about this on IRC a while ago), you should avoid templated in templates as it causes unnessacery server strain. If there was a template within a template, (e.g. the one db-repost before I changed it), when you type in db-repost or a shortcut to it, it first has to go into the database to find that template to show the text. Now since in itself is an another template, it then has to go into the database AGAIN to fetch that template. This extra step is completely unessacery and just slows down Wikipedia. Although I won't totally object to using templates in templates, when it is not needed, I suggest you avoid it. And the text is not that hard to edit (i.e. if you don't know how to edit it, ask someone else to). Again, just trying to save server strain. Sasquatch &#08596;&#35762;&#08596;&#30475; 19:56, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

MoS
Regarding your most recent change to the MoS, I want to thank you for being willing to engage in the spirit of compromise. Nohat 19:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Wooops !
I know, I just missed it ;) Thanks for correcting me friend :)

P.S. thanks for the note on deleting msgs. I was aware of this for criticism, but since I don't think your message was in the cathegory, I rm'd it. If you want to restore it go ahead, by all means :)

--Raistlin 17:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

hi there. thanks for the note before. my page on Edward P. L. Tsang and addition on Utility Computing were removed. I guess there is a steep learning curve to put stuff on wikipedia, i will take my time to learn about it when I can. But for now, I better finish my thesis before attempting to contribute again. The other guy didn't seem to appreciate that I was trying, and just deleted it right out. Anyway, good and bad of open source effort, i guess.

TOCright
I was going to ask you to check whether I had done things correctly when I closed the TOCright vote at the MOS, because I could have sworn that you were an admin because of your behavior, but I see that you're as new as me. Anyways, good work like this will make you an admin very soon, so keep it up. :) Whenever you get a Request for Adminship, tell me and count me in. --Titoxd 22:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Edward P. L. Tsang
Thanks for that, I erred on the side of caution and restored it, though i doubt it will survive for long. Martin (Bluemoose) 23:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I am doing a lot of reading now and preparing to update the page on Utility Computing which will put this page into context. I am modifying the summary of my thesis to use for the page. Just trying to learn how to "wikify" the Utility Computing page, should be ready real soon.

Roman the Great
'''Before the birth date you listed "a." Did you mean this to stand for "about"? the wikipedia standard is to use "c." for circa. Dit it apply to the birth date only or to both dates.'''

Yes I meant "circa" and it applies only for the birth date.

'''You wrote "Roman Mstyslavych was reputed by victory hikes against Polovtsi in 1197-1198, 1201 and 1204". I don't know what this means -- did he defeat the Polovtsi, or was rumored to ahve doe so, or did he gain reputation for doing so, or what?'''

He gained reputation for having defeated the Polovtsi.

'''You wrote "He lived mostly in peace with Hungary and Poland, won uneasy neighbours." this doesn't make sense as written do you mean that his realtions with Hungary and Poland were uneasy, although mostly peaceful?'''

He lived in peace with Hungary and Poland but also won battles and territories against other peoples neighbour to him.

Bogatyr

Hike
I mean "a victorious campaign" !

Hike = campaign in my text.

Sorry for my bad English language ! :)

Tip
Thank you for the tip, It's been a long time I was wondering how people do to sign and show the time etc.

Now I know :

Bogatyr 16:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Dust bag
Hi. That was some bizarre, rambling kiddie-wiki. Why it's being undeleted, I have no idea. Kappa, to his credit, tries to include things...but NoPuzzleStranger is stalking my edits left and right. Check out his vote at "Monique deMoan" to see what I mean. - Lucky 6.9 17:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

lol
This nearly killed me. It's exactly the correct response of course, and I was contemplating doing it when I saw you did. Previously undetected garbage on WP is no argument for letting more garbage through. But hell you deserve a humor barnstar.— Encephalon |  &zeta;  |  &Sigma;  02:28:51, 2005-08-15 (UTC)

GEO
I'll have to take a look as to how. The original entry was nothing more than something like "Geo is a Pakistani television channel" without so much as a period. - Lucky 6.9 18:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Should be OK now. Nice save. :) - Lucky 6.9 18:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure. Someone else first tagged it as an A1, but I'm glad it was resurrected as something that's actually useful. Wish the original poster would have added more, but oh well. Gots ta run. See you 'round the Wiki! - Lucky 6.9 19:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

APL
Oh! An APL programmer! Someone to whom I can tell my APL joke, without first having to explain what APL is.

ahem

What does one APL programmer say to the other?

Guess what THIS does!

DS 11:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Fictional characters
I just want to get this straightened out before the categories get moved. I'm good with moving Category:Literary characters to Category:Characters in written fiction, and I thought this was going to be the way we were going to go for its subcats. For instance you nominted Category:Literary science fiction characters and suggested moving it to Category:Characters in written science fiction. I'm good with this too because it follows the same format; however, I'm not sure about Category:Literary fantasy characters being moved to Category:Fantasy characters (written). I guess I'm ok with it, but I thought something more like Category:Characters in written fantasy fiction is more along the lines of what we were going for? Tell me which you want. At this point, I don't really care, I'm just making sure I don't have to do this twice :) K1Bond007 20:05, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can do, which sounds and looks a lot better. K1Bond007 20:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

going live
Hiya,

The discussion seems to have gone all quiet on the proposed styles solution, though I have tried to get it going again. There is from what was said a clear consensus on using this solution. I'm going to start putting in the papal box to see if it will work. Is that OK with you?

FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course. Its at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution.

Adminship
David, why, may I ask, are you not an admin yet? It's high time you were, this place needs people like you to have keys. You can count me in for a strong support vote if you or someone else makes a move to nominate. And I hope that happens sooner rather than later. Cheers— Encephalon | &zeta;  12:38:48, 2005-08-19 (UTC)
 * Ah. So you have a history, do you? Lol. But David, that really shouldn't matter; most administrators and editors have the maturity to look past differences in policy views and recognize administrative talent when they see it. I wouldn't sell your article edits short, either. You may not have written entire articles yourself, but one does not have to be a Geogre to be an admin. Of your 3491 edits, 1310 have been to the article space; it is, in fact, the space you have most contributed to, by far. I will not nominate you myself; although I've used and been familiar with WP for ages and ages, I have only very recently signed up and therefore a nomination from me is unlikely to be viewed as an influential show of support — something which can be important in these things. But when someone does, you can count on a vote from me. Regards— Encephalon | &zeta;  01:48:00, 2005-08-20 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you very much for cleaning up and wikifying my articles. I was looking for more information on that subject, and forgot to fix things up a little.Johann Wolfgang 01:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Whatsername
This entry was deleted because is marked "nonsense" and I concurred. Furthermore, the next day it was deleted a second time by another admin. The short text began with 'Whatsername is a fictional character in the Green Day album American Idiot. Whatsername becomes involved with St. Jimmy...' and ended with, if I recall well, 'whathisname'. Such a content is normally termed as nonsense, unless it has an encyclopedic significance. If so, it should be expanded and brought to the expected standards. If you want to do this, I can always restore this article. But in its present state, it should stay deleted. I hope you can concur with my view. JoJan 16:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry
Im sorry for the misunderstanding. However, at the state in which the 'article' was in, it did qualify as 'nonsense'. To avoid further misunderstandings, please do not save pages until you are finished writing, or simply leave a note in the edit history or something. OK? Anyway sorry again.


 * You see this as an article:

Thoughts on various subjects, moral and diverting A fine tract by Johnathan Swift, a master of satire.


 * and you are telling me that you wouldnt think of it as nonsense?

The first thing that would come to anyone's mind is "what is this?". "What are they talking about?", especially as Wikipedia is so susceptible to users testing or creating foolishness. I reiterate, though, Im sorry for the simple misunderstanding. Are we cool?

Maoririder RfAr
I've begun writing a draft of an arbitration request at User:Satori/MaoriRfAr. I know you've followed this, and if you'd like to make any changes or additions, or to add your name to the initiating party, please feel free to to do. I intend to post it to Requests for arbitration tomorrow morning, PDT. -Satori 22:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I've made changes to the draft according to your suggestions. If you have a minute, take a look and see if you think anything else needs to be changed or added. Thanks for your help! -Satori 15:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

ECommerce Best Practices
You put this on VfD, and it is indeed a blatent ad. It is also a copyvio from the corporate site, and I have listed it as such. Btw, please remember to Subst vfd. Thanks for spotting this one. DES (talk) 05:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice catch, I must have forgotten to google it. Thanks.
 * As for substing VfD, despite lots of discussion I still haven't found any convincing arguments for it. The server load argument is no stronger for VfD templates than any other, and I doubt how effective it is against detagging (and I watch my VfDed pages anyway). On the balance, I prefer the labour-saving of not typing the extra subst:. --fvw *  05:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * You are welcome.
 * On subst -- VfD pages are rather frequently viewed, but particualrly are frequently edited compared to most pages, and this increases the load effect of templates, as I understand it. Furthermore, the subst inserts the html comment warning against de-tagging. This will not stop a malcious de-tagger or vandal, of course. But it may help educate a newbie, IMO. All that said, if you have considered the issues, it is your choice. i will subst and un-substed vfd when i happen to notice one. DES (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Nope, templates only get invalidated if the template itself is edited. Also, I'm not sure pages on VfD get that many hits; if we were to choose a template to subst in for performance reasons, my first choice would be template:current, as articles marked with that tend to get a lot of hits (and not just from us behind-the-scenes munchkins). You're welcome to edit my tagging mercilessly of course (just as I'm well within my rights to mercilessly split my infinitives). --fvw *  05:58, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Al Denson
Being a contemporary Christian music artist asserts notability, IMHO. There are few contemporary Christian music artists and many of them are notable, so I believe that such is an assertion of notability. At any rate, because the article survived, someone has expanded it to show that he is really quite notable. JYolkowski // talk 20:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Pressure 4-5
Any comments on this page ? Seems to me it is a candidate for Vfd, but I am not sure. Groeck 14:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me how it should be a candidate for deletion when the band was on a major label (and released a full-length album), they were on Ozzfest, they were featured on MTV (and VH1) a number of times and the single "Beat The World" was on a top 100 chart. It hardly does not meet the criteria. Enfestid 19:05, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Press release containing information on Pressure 4-5 being on the modern rock and heatseeker album charts (in the top 50, no less): []. Enfestid 19:07, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Vfd trouble
continues to behave strangely with respect to VFD closings - in particular, relisting any discussion with less than five votes even if they all vote the same (e.g. here), thus unilaterally creating a quorum policy, except when he already agrees with the outcome e.g. here; closing 3del/3redir results as "keep"; and closing VFDs as keep when he in fact already merged or redirected the article. I believe this to be misleading at best, WP:POINT at worst. Any suggestions on how to deal with this? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 23:06, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Laptop class
Yeah, I was starting to have second thoughts about this one after I pulled the trigger. Thanks for pointing that out. I've restored it so it can be VfD'd. Off for now...talk to ya later. - Lucky 6.9 00:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"Sockpuppet"
I tried not to bite that suspected sock too hard; sorry if it came off that way. I was trying to show more annoyance than anger. Thanks again. Owe ya two now. - Lucky 6.9 04:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Sir Harry Charles Luke
reg year links. fair enough. Usrnme h8er 06:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Funny, I just sat down to read the dates convention for names and found that the entry for Socrtes (only years known) doesn't agree at all with your editing of Sir Harry Charles Luke... I'm not personally fussed, I just noticed it now. Usrnme h8er 11:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

logged out
FYI, I have on a number of occasions when doing a long edit or retriving links from other pages (or just gettign up for a steach) been auto-logged-out, and only discovered this after clicking save and seeing that my four tildas expanded to an IP instead of my user name. It is easy for this to happen. DES (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'd expect that. Would you, while unknowningly logged as an anon, fake a ~ for your logged in account? Twice on the same VfD from different IPs?  I think there is a 50% chance I'm wrong but it's just odd. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  16:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I guess I misunderstood the situation. i might, if I realized I was loggd out and didn't want to bother to log back in, sign as "-DES". i wouldn't bother to create a link that looked like my noraml sig no. Of course, some users have dynamic IPs so the different IPs may mean nothing. DES (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Mirrors & IDs
[User: Felix Frederick Bruyns] I thank you for clearing up the problem about the pro-marjuana site. I would also like to ask if you know of anyone on the site who has a habit of hijacking other user's identities to mock them. Could it have been Moriori? Or was it someone else? If you don't know, could you guide me to someone who does? Thanks again.


 * Sorry, I don't know who might do this, nor who to ask. I would suggest posting this at WP:AN or the village pump or both. DES (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
--User Talk: Felix Frederick Bruyns Thank you for the tip. I sent a message to the administrators. By the way, do you know if there is a virus on Wikipedia?

Probably No Virus
--User Talk: Felix Frederick Bruyns My A drive suddenly malfunctioned just after I returned to Wikipedia, and I had a disk in it while I was on Wikipedia. That, combined with my old quarrels with certain users made me suspect a virus, but I now think that it is just a coincidence. Thank you very much.

Important Question
--User Talk: Felix Frederick Bruyns Moriori is causing me more and more problems, just as he did in 2004. Does he generally have a bad reputation on this site, or has he simply decided to make me his virtual punching bag? Thank you very much.

My Grievances Against Moriori: The Whole Story
--User Talk: Felix Frederick Bruyns I have decided that I must tell the entire story about what Moriori has done to me. It is rather long and I apologize for that, but it cannot be helped. The problems began in mid-2004, slightly over a year ago. I was 19 years old, very ignorant about the technical aspects of Internet use and I knew nothing about Wikipedia policy. I stumbled across your free encyclopedia, however, and I decided that, having done intensive research on Negro League baseball, I would write a few articles in Wikipedia. I saw that registration was optional, and so I did not see any reason to bother with it. I was, I believe, assigned a number with colons in it. I wrote several articles on Negro Leaguers (which, in essentials, remain on Wikipedia today) and I did not take credit for them even though I didn't know of the Wikipedia policy against taking such credit, since I thought that they should be fully public domain and that the work was its own reward. My mother, however, said that my articles were of high quality and that I should in some way take credit for them. Not knowing of the policy against this, I simply typed "Author: Felix F. Bruyns" at the bottom of each article. That was when some confusion began. Some people believed that I was not "Felix F. Bruyns" and that I might have stolen the articles from someone by that name. Then my father suggested that I register under my own name (which is Felix F. Bruyns) to clarify the matter. I did so, but it was at about this time that the situation became ugly. I looked up some entertainers, among them Kylie Minogue, Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Drew Barrymore and Cary Grant. I knew nothing about the "point of view" policy at the time, but in retrospect they contained a libertarian and pro-pornography point of view. I am more conservative now than I was then, but even then I was shocked by the disrespectful and unprofessional nature of some of the articles. So, having the understanding that anyone was allowed to edit anyone else's work, I removed a few sentences from these articles and changed a few others. That was when the wrath of every anti-censorship Wikipedian seemed to descend on me. I was accused of "vandalism", called a "troll", told by Raul654 that he "political correctness is something I despise" (obvious POV motivation) and it was also Raul654 who accused me of "PC (political correctness) pushing". But another of my attackers stood out even more. Both Moriori and Raul654 called me a "troll" and Raul654 claimed that my articles on the Negro Leaguers were "far from original", but as bad as all of this was Moriori went a step further. He accused me of "copyvio" and demanded that I remove all of my articles from the site. This could have been an honest mistake because of the "Author: Felix F. Bruyns" confusion, but I came across one item that proved that Moriori was premeditated in his falsehoods. He specifically claimed that I had copied my article on Turkey Stearnes from the African American Registry. This was so far from the truth that it had to be a deliberate lie. The African American Registry's "born on this day" article on Turkey Stearnes doesn't even closely resemble mine, and the site was not even one of my sources of research on Stearnes. The timing of these accusations definitely suggests that Moriori's motives were political, but, of course, I cannot prove his motives. I presume that Moriori was fully familiar with the "keep your cool" policy, since he seemed far more experienced in Wikipedia than I was, but I was not. He and I exchanged a series of angry user talks. To be honest, we BOTH lost our tempers. He called me a "troll", accused me of vandalism, "copyvio" and demanded that I remove all of my articles from Wikipedia. In turn, irate over the obvious slander, I called him "a plague spot on Wikipedia" and demanded that he remove all of his articles from the site. I also made justified legal threats against him, unaware of the "no legal threats" Wikipedia policy. Although two or three users showed some sympathy for me, many more accused me of vandalism or otherwise sided with Moriori. I was so upset that I visited the New Zealand police website, but unfortunately, unlike some national police sites, they had no non-emergency e-mail. The last straw was when someone hijacked both my "Felix F. Bruyns" user page and a message board, claiming to be me and typing things like "You may think of me as a vandal, but I like to think of myself more as a dictator" and other such arrogant nonsense that I had nothing to do with whatsoever. I had no idea of how to deal with this sort of treatment, so I finally decided to leave the site in utter humiliation. A few months later I suffered a series of moderate illnesses (tonsilitis, facial swelling of unknown cause, etc...) and I was not on the Internet again until a couple of months ago. One of the first things that I did was to check if the slanderous references to me were still on the web, which they were. I decided that I would resume some editing and I re-registered with Wikipedia. Of course, since over a year had passed, I had long forgotten my old password so I registered under my full name "Felix Frederick Bruyns" with a new password. I looked up the article on Kylie Minogue, but at some point I became emotionally repulsed by its content (which had actually gotten worse) and that, combined with my old anger over the slanderous references to me in the archives (which I didn't know how to edit at that time), led me to write two imprudently angry (but neither illegal nor profane) messages, both of which were mostly the result of my ignorance about the archives and so forth. In these messages I castigated Wikipedia as a whole, and for this I apologize. It was wrong of me to overgeneralize based on a few articles or the abuse of a few users. If I have offended any of the administrators or other senior users of Wikipedia I am sincerely sorry. At the same time I think that you can understand, given my ignorance of nearly all Wikipedia policy and the treatment that I had received, why I felt very angry. I moderated my tone as I learned more about Wikipedia, but in some of my general complaints and requests I mentioned Moriori and what he had done to me in 2004. Well, he responded by lying about me (he claimed that I had accused him of spreading a virus, which is not true). He has twice quoted me out of context in our renewed online struggle, and of course we have exchanged insults. Finally, a message that I left on this very noticeboard was deleted, and I have every reason to believe that Moriori deleted it. To be fair, when I wrote the message I had forgotten something that I said in 2004, and so I accused him of misquoting me rather than quoting me out of context. I will copy this message, however, so that I can replace it if he deletes it. I am now "keeping my cool". I am not demanding anything from administrators or more experienced Wikipedians. I am making a humble request-in fact-I am pleading that someone will understand my side of the story and the wrongs that Moriori has committed against me. No matter what Moriori tells you or anyone else, every word of this post is the truth, so help me God. Will someone please help me? Thank you very much.

Second Confusion About Deletion
--User Talk: Felix Frederick Bruyns I sent that long complaint against Moriori to the administrative noticeboard, and it was from there that an earlier message had been deleted. Then, because it was late at night (where I live) and the message was so long, I simply copied it and sent it several other places, forgetting the specific reference to the administrative board. Sorry for the mix-up. As for my past editing, I never tried to "censor" Wikipedia in the perjorative sense of trying to enforce my own point of view. All I did was try to edit out certain passages that I felt were not fully representative of the subjects or had a point of view of their own (although I didn't know the POV policy at that time). As for "help", I want to know what can be done against someone who accused me of copyright violation and continues to lie about me (arbitration, etc...). Raul654, by the way, may well have been deceived by Moriori, so I don't hold him as responsible for how I was treated. Sorry for the confusion, and thank you very much.

The Articles in 2004
--User Talk: Felix Frederick Bruyns When I visited this site in 2004, the article on Jennifer Love Hewitt read, and I reluctantly quote, "references to her breasts cropped up" and there was actually a LINK to a website of some deviant fan specific to that part of Hewitt's anatomy. That was probably what shocked me the most back then. Even some fellow Wikipedians agreed with me on that one, though I doubt that Moriori did. I don't have too many objections to the current text on Kylie Minogue (though I do have a few); I am more concerned about the images. The article seems to mock her early, "girl next door" years and praise her "sexually aware" ones, but more importantly one of the images of her would probably be banned off primetime television (at least in the US). Back in 2004, however, the article on Minogue contained an entire "anatomical" paragraph and an offensive photographic close-up. The articles on Drew Barrymore and Angelina Jolie were partially fixed, though last I knew Barrymore's "measurements" were still listed, and a very mainstream user agreed that is was a POV to list women's measurements but not men's. I admit that I may have been on somewhat weak ground about the Cary Grant article, but one story about his early years seemed irrelevant and unneccessary to the overall information.

Bike Friday
On WP:VFU, you wrote: ''In hindsight, it wasn't a speedy, mea culpa. If anyone wants it undeleted and VfDed post a message to my talk page. --fvw* 08:08, September 1, 2005 (UTC)''.

If it wasn't a speedy deletion candidate, please undelete it, and place it on VfD (AfD) if you think it should be so placed. DES (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, Dbpsmith has already replaced it with an excellent article, but I've undeleted the two revisions in history. --fvw *  22:01, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Reason for deletions
Hi there. To expedite an amicable dispute settlement, I and User:Felix Frederick Bruyns have agreed to delete all comments we have made about each other on all talk pages. He asked that I let you know, so you won't think it is vandalism when it happens. Cheers. Moriori 02:39, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

An Explanation is Needed
Why did you send me an obscene message a couple of days ago? You should know that I of all people loathe such garbage. It was completely unsolicited and monstrously obscene, and you and I are one tiny step away from arbitration over it. If you don't remember it, I cut it and pasted it here: (I added the asterisks) -:::Note i for one don't agree with the "drawings are preferable to photographs rule" at least not in general. See my vote on the Image:************ 2.jpg IFD. DES (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

That is why I haven't sent you any messages recently and why I asked Moriori to tell you about the deletions rather than have to communicate with you directly. So, give me your explanation ASAP, and it had better be a good one. Felix Frederick Bruyns 04:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Time Is Running Out, DESiegel
ASAP stands for as soon as possible. I'll give you until 10:15 PM U.S. Pacific Time, which is 05:15 UTC, to respond about your conduct. If you haven't responded by that time, I will take this matter to the highest level of arbitration possible. If you take my deadline lightly you will not be dealt with lightly in arbitration. Felix Frederick Bruyns 05:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)