User talk:FloNight/archive 2

Round-tripping
Round-tripping is clearly documented in WebEx's annual reports. See e.g. its 2003 report, acknowledging on p. 5 that 11% of its revenue comes from distribution partners that admittedly include portals. These portals account for a substantial fraction of WebEx's advertising costs documented on p. 50. WebEx expressly admits its round-tripping arrangement with "a Chinese reseller" on p. 17. In view of the company's history, the details of the loan arrangement appear to signal self-dealing by its Chinese-connected executives. Please see Sun's annual reports for similar corroboration. Please restore the information accordingly. Wikipedia wouldn't want to think that you are partial to coverups of corporate shenanigans. Henryuzi 05:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)henryuzi
 * Henryuzi, thank-you for the feedback. FloNight   talk   13:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As you probably know, I have been forbidden to edit articles related to WebEx . As long as this decision remains in force, I am trying not to generate further controversy in this subject matter. However, I repeat my request that you restore the information in the article on round-tripping according to the evidence that I have provided in response to your request. WebEx remains a "hot topic", with evidence of corporate attempts to censor related Wikipedia articles . It is likely that one or more of the editors currently involved in editing these articles are following corporate orders. Please avoid biased edits that give this impression. Henryuzi 05:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)henryuzi
 * Henryuzi, I've closely examined this topic, asked for second and third opinions, and decided not to include the content in the round-tripping article or WebEx. Please let me know if there is a change. Otherwise, I consider the subject closed for now. regards, FloNight  talk  15:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing more need be said
Articles for deletion/Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation --DanielCD 16:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * More fun here than Saturday Night Live. --DanielCD 17:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a debate about a scout founder. I can't get them to tell my why it's so important, though, that this much information is needed on this. Why wouldn't the three paragraphs in the main article suffice? How much can you say about a person's sexual orientation? You could write volumes on one hand, but this is an encyclopedia. It's supposed to be an overview. --DanielCD 21:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * According to my quick count between the main article and the fork there is more verbiage devoted to speculation on his sexuality oin two books than the combined total given to his military career and his foundation of Scouting. I could have sworn we were not supposed to do that. Just zis Guy you know? 22:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not needs an update. People have lost perspective about what an encyclopedia is and is not. Being verifiable from a reliable source, doesn't automatically make something encyclopedic. FloNight   talk   22:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I've said my piece and I'm not going back. It seems this place is going to be taken over by the people with the hardest heads. As soon as the public perception of Wikipedia changes to seeing it as trash, it's not going to turn back. Articles like this are going to send to hell in a handbag. And sure enough, it's some sexual issue. I never said anything about that and they are laying claims of censorship on me! My head tells me to just gat away and go back to the plant articles, but my heart says go back and fight. Perhaps this time I'll listen to my head. The heart is a lonely hunter. --DanielCD 00:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Cutting that last one out. You can archive it if you want, but I want to let that issue go to rest regarding my input, and don't want anyone coming by and taking a pot shot. Go ahead and replace it if you'd like and scold me accordingly. I just left a plea to rethink the article concept and I think that's a good place to leave it. --DanielCD 14:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Morning funny
Enjoy it as much as I did. --DanielCD 15:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sillyness aside, toss this one a peek: Hazy Moon Zen Center. Legitimate, but possibly not notable enough. Still, I see no grounds for outright deletion. --DanielCD 15:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for helping me spiffy it up. --DanielCD 16:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Fortunately this one's not as controversial. If it gets chopped, oh well. And please don't be afraid to disagree with me. I'd just like to see it at least go to the block with a tie and its hair combed. --DanielCD 16:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you go to the AID and vote for Mussel. I'm afraid it's going to die. LMK if asking you to do this is a problem, as I don't want to put you on the spot if you don't like it. I just really think that one deserves attention. --DanielCD 14:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Richard Simmons' sexual orientation --> Can you imagine the horrors?? Michael Jackson's sexual orientation already popped up as a redirect. What's next? --DanielCD 14:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Abraham Lincoln's Sexual Orientation - Sigh! --DanielCD 14:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

More frustration. I can't believe John Seigenthaler Sr. is going to take up a week's worth of AID time when so many other articles are in need. Wikipedia can be so damn frustrating. --DanielCD 15:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome message
I appreciate the welcome message on my user page, but I've been around for a few years now, I just normally don't login for edits. drf 22:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Slap me, quick
Junk DNA - Slap me and tell me to get the hell away from the creationist/evolution argument. I will buy you a hamburger next Tuesday if you oblige. I'm not a staunch evolutionist, but I think the Creationist caveats... dammit there I go again...

I'm just going to remove it from my watchlist, go home, and take a long nap... it was all a bad dream. Before Peppers, Before Pedophilia, before flowers... there was the nasty Creat/Evolut. battlegrounds. I still have PTSD from that. see ya later.

LOL. I'll just take it off my watchlist, pick up my Kafka, and hope it goes away. --DanielCD 22:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

User:DanielCD/Personal sandbox --> I stold this from another user's page, which you've probably seen. I go here when the cr@p get's too thick... --DanielCD 22:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

After meditating in my secret spot, I decided I'm going to let this go. Perhaps my judgement was a little snap here. I just don't trust answersingenesis.org. I retracted my removal of the material; let's for once assume readers are smart enough to know what's going on.

And also: I ruthlessly reverted your last edit at Junk DNA. If you have a question on it, feel free to revert my revert of your revert to his last revert that reverted my first revert. :P --DanielCD 02:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I was looking for some information on Lewis Carroll's sexual orientation. The article itself doesn't seem to have enough info and I'm hungry for more. Perhaps start Lewis Carroll's sexual orientation? It might work. But I'll wait it out, I'm sure someone else will think of it soon and start it for me. (for anyone so unedified, yes, this is sarcasm). --DanielCD 02:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Inf3rn0
Inf3rn0 --> this is a sting/troll lure. It's fake and someone is trying to lure a pedophile. I'm trying to finsomeone to second the speedy. --DanielCD 16:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Inf3rn0 created it. lol. Mushroom got to it rather fast. I was trying to look up the speed delete policy but he beat me to it. I'm still trying to learn this stuff. --DanielCD 16:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Why would a kid go to the trouble to say he is a "boy/male from Norway" and give a name and website address with pictures? I just don't think that was a kid. I might be wrong, but I woldn't be surprised if ppl are trying to sting someone through Wikipedia to make a point. --DanielCD 16:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Inf3rn0. Hyuck. --DanielCD 16:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I guess after all I've seen around here I've got a nose for those kind of things; perhaps too much so. But it's gone, and it had a minor's name in it, which is bad enough in itself. BTW great job, and I mean excellet job, with that PAW thing. You guys are shining that up nice. I might just get involved again after a while. We'll see. --DanielCD 16:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should leave the quicker discussions on one or ther other's page. This back and forth is making me dizzy. --DanielCD 16:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * We will talk over top each other. So be dizzy or edit conflicts. --FloNight 16:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I left an explaination and I don't see a problem. Someone's being vigilant, but a tad overzealous, I believe that's all. --DanielCD 16:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yea really. See this:



not the most flattering, but the best example I could find of a statement i've made in this regard. --DanielCD 16:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yea, all kinds of interesting crap goes on around here. --DanielCD 17:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea whatsever what HMAS means. Your guess is as good as mine. --DanielCD 01:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Today's ("possible") deletion nominee
Stephen Colduck

Being a radio news guy is just a job. Prod? AfD? --DanielCD 01:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I dunno, they come to me like I'm a magnet or something. Say something then disappear. ?? --DanielCD 01:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think he means a accidental revert I did at User talk:ILovePlankton. I was watching for vandalism and acted on auto (easy and tempting to hit the rollback sometimes), then realized the mistake, and immediately re-reverted it. I don't know where this guy comes into the picture. --DanielCD 02:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting how he changed his signature on that edit he "reverted" from my mistake revert. See my comment at User talk:ILovePlankton. WTF?

--DanielCD 02:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Golly, I don't know. Can't really think of a motive. Can't think of how it could have been accidental. Then he advertises it by telling me to "butt out". Just wierd. --DanielCD 02:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Moving on
Pornography addiction and Psychological addiction are both a mess. Someone is really against the idea of PA. I might look at it tomorrow. I can't believe people fight over junk when important stuff goes neglected (and fight over neglected stuff too, as it's easy to own an article when no one stops by). Ho hum. I'm calling it a night. --DanielCD 02:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll just have to take it one day (one article) at a time. I wouldn't have started the Hazy Moon article myself, but since it's here, no reason to delete it. Now we can move on to something new... --DanielCD 02:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Pagans In Recovery --> You can go here for recovery, but you have to be pagan, mind you. Don't be slipping in any Zoroastrians or Gnostics! --DanielCD 13:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Andrea Yates is a child killer, but having her in Category:Child killers makes her look like an axe murderer who hunted them for sport. Not saying it doesn't belong there, just talking out loud. --DanielCD 14:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Instead it is a navigational tool.

This is what I've been saying all along. Yet it can still create POV. --DanielCD 16:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Grahram Rix primarily known as a CSO? --DanielCD 17:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the welcome. It's nice to be considered a part of the Wikipedia community. Roddelcid7 18:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

March 7
Quite busy lately. I'm going to pass on voting on the Friends category thing, as I am too on the fence, would probably weak delete, but don't want to think about it, as too much else going on. Sorry to be unresponsive, just loads going on. --DanielCD 14:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I was tidying an archive page and found this -->. Just what is a "courtesy blanking"? --DanielCD 15:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you ask him to do that or want it done? --DanielCD 15:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

question
Duncharris is blinded by his bias, and I have looked at the many other comments posted on his talk page and he clearly is predisposed towards distorting ID and creationist positions. Therefore I am curious what other strategy you would suggest I take. I was under the impression that a "discussion" page involved just that---discussion, but so far Duncharris has responded with trite, irrelevant comments that are anything but discussion. This really gives me a dim view of open-mindedness and community one would expect to find behind Wikipedia. Razzendahcuben 22:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I'm curious why I am told by 2 people that I should be more civil for calling Duncharris incompetent (which he clearly demonstrated himself to be---I wasn't using it as a perjorative), but when he refers to me as a 'brainless cretinist troll' no one blinks an eye... Razzendahcuben 23:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, FloNight. I have a good feeling I'll never change anyone's opinion since their bias towards evolution is so strong, nevertheless I'll try your advice. Have a good day. Razzendahcuben 14:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking for articles to work on?
Hello, FloNight. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. You might like to edit these articles I picked for you based on things you've edited in the past. Check it out -- I hope you find it useful. -- SuggestBot 22:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks FloNight
Thanks FloNight

I'm looking forward to many years of contribution in certain areas of my acedemic interest, I will certainly be asking for your advice in the future.Gibb0080 04:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Charmmy Kitty
Yea, looks like you can just work on the George Bushes. Woa, this week is being kinda rough on me as far as work/classes/family/chores/etc.etc.etc. --DanielCD 14:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Got my bot suggestions just now. My problems are solved: from now on I edit Batman and Charmmy Kitty. (especially Charmmy Kitty) --DanielCD 14:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Think Charmmy Kitty is AID material? Peer review? --DanielCD 14:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * We could be on to something here. Someone on the talk page of Charmmy Kitty is suggesting in an indirect manner (perhaps some sort of code) that Charmmy and Hello Kitty are being used to endoctrinate the youth of the world about the benefits of slavery. Perhaps training them for participation in some totalitarian regime? I don't know, but could be serious. Could be Al Qaida, the IRA, the Mexican connection, Fiona Apple and cronies, who knows. I'm checking into it. May have to protect the article if things get too rough. --DanielCD 20:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You get to work on Ejaculatory duct and DanielCd gets Charmmy Kitty. He must know somebody. Herostratus 00:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry & Meatpuppetry proposed finding
Why do the findings, using the same guidelines that FM proposed, 'needlessly raise the tension in this case, and are not in the best interest of the WP community'? FM is located in the same area as that group of anon IPs. If he states they are not his sock puppets, then we can only believe him. But I am not going to remove the finding, just as he has not removed his finding that I showed were false. Also, you did see that Jim62sch admitted that Rainbowpainter is his wife, didn't you? Do you realise that Jim's wife only posted on one article, in the midst of a conflict to aid that conflict? That is the definition of a meat puppet. FM falsely connects me to users I have never come in contact with and users who don't post anything like me because their IP resolves to the same state or country, or because they edited some of the same articles, including a user who I had a conflict with and who speculated on my identity. I have not seen you challenge any of the continued lies and misrepresentations this group has made. Where is your request that they withdraw claims that have been proven false because they 'needlessly raise the tension in this case, and are not in the best interest of the WP community'? agapetos_angel 17:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand much of this process at all, being new and never being subjected to it. This arbitration has gone from another request for assistance to another avenue to lynch me.  I did not offer the proof in bad faith, but based on the evidence I discovered. None of this is fairy floss.  Proximity of IP addresses is accurate; sole posts to one article are suspect. Furthermore, Jim admitted that RP is his wife, so that proposal is valid. I found the connection, FM denies it, and I AGF that he is telling the truth (which is more than I have had in this proceeding; it has been constantly assumed that I am guilty, even in the face of contrary evidence).  Are FM accusations assumed to be in good faith and mine in bad simply because he makes them first?  His accusations are as erroneous as he says mine are.  If you were trying to aid me, it failed miserably.  All your admonishment served to do is escalate FM's claims that I am acting in bad faith by providing him with proof that someone else agrees with him.  You are now named as a third party that tried to dissuade me. agapetos_angel 19:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, Flo, I understand your misconception. However, I am not being vindictive or WP:POINT. The evidence was posted in good faith. (NB I also removed two IP addresses after your comment and my re-examination showed they were unconnected by proximity.)  As I will note, the RfM was denied because I did not notify everyone individually, KimB was admonished for not notifying everyone of the RfAr in a timely manner, so there was no cause for me to view notifying named IP addresses on their talk page as a disruption. agapetos_angel 02:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Today's fun
Shottie was brought to my attention. It seems to give advice on how to do drugs. A real mess. Any comments appreciated. --DanielCD 21:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where to begin. It still seems to give advise or encourage use. Should you prod it?

Also: "Meatpuppet" is a new one for me. What is it? --DanielCD 21:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A Meat puppet is a variation of a sock puppet; a new internet community member account is created by another person at the request of a user solely for the purposes of influencing the community on a given issue or issues. While less overtly deceptive than sock puppetry, the effect of meat puppetry and sock puppetry on the community as a whole may be similar. (From Internet sock puppet). FloNight   talk   21:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I have read about that. Wow, lots of ways to play the system. --DanielCD 21:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Hey, how is it going? Thank you for supporting my Request for adminship! It passed with a final vote of 73/1/1, which means that I have been granted adminship! I look forward to using these tools to enhance and maintain this wonderful site. I will continue regular article/project contributions, but I will also allocate a sizable portion of my wikischedule toward administrative duties :) Thanks again, and if you have any questions/comments/tips, please let me know! &mdash; Deckiller 05:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it's Saturday!
Now here is a well-referenced article: Zein. Wow. --DanielCD 20:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Now it's Sunday. Look at this: Revisionist Western. I'm not so sure the definition is so solid. Just if you are interested. --DanielCD 21:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hall Monitor
Firstly, thank you for the warm welcome to Wikipedia. I have been on this fantastic website loads lately, and because I was brought up in a rough part of Glasgow, Scotland I feel my knowledge of the Scottish delinquent personality would be of use as a 'Hall Monitor'.

But how do you become one!

Please, please, reply soon and let me know - I would be very willing to regulate against the high number of anonymous Scottish & UK vandals.

Thank You, Anthony —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony cfc (talk • contribs)

Regarding Swedish Democrats
Hi,

Yes i am a bit new, but still thinks that i have pretty good grasp about NPOV, but im sure there is more to learn. And my english is not exactly perfect...

I dont know if this is anything for You - but i have the opinion that the subjet "Swedish Democrats" it treated wery POV. If i compare this article to articles about severly more extreme parties like "front national", there is notting of tabliod slander there. The Swedish Democrats page have 30% slander - witch according to what i have seen is a WIKI record. Well, no i dont have anything more to say, so i leave it there,

Regards, SweHomer 22:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

SweHomer
Thank-you for your speedy response. But is not new to Wikipedia in general. For example, on the Sweden Democrats discussion page he says: "Normally I hold the English wikipedia in high regard compared to the Swedish Wiki". Therefore, I think he has much experience with Swedish Wikipedia. He is even familiar with the Arbitration System for resolving disputes and knows all the proper formatting, etc.

Have you viewed the Sweden Democrats article as of now? SweHomer's "Response to the Controversy" section is what I'm talking about. He is trying to use Wikipedia to prove his conspiracy theories, and he is knowingly violating NPOV policy, which seems quite evident to me. The most incriminating evidence: "This is of course what EXPO/AFA wants. To grow, and to get their revolution they need enemies and destabilization." I'm sure you can agree with me that this has no place in an encyclopedia. This type of political discourse is typical of him.

He thinks the "Response" section is a place for him to write an essay from the Sweden Democrats' point of view. I told him it is not, but he just won't stop. He is really degrading the encyclopedia, for he is turning Wikipedia into a place of politcal debate. I have nothing against addressing the allegations in a neutral way, complete with sources. In fact, I created the "Response" section and wrote the first paragraph. But what he's doing is just unnacceptable.

I ask that you ban him, at least temporarily, because he is not doing this out of ignorance. Or if you could intervene is some other way, that would be helpful, too. We simply cannot work with him, for he insists on including his personal beliefs in Wikipedia articles.

WGee 22:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll refrain from provoking him with such terms, though I do feel they are totally justified. Also, I should clarify that rebuking SweHomer's opinions and theories, no matter how scathing the terms, is not a personal attack.


 * I'll continue to monitor the article, but I won't edit it for a while, and I'll let SweHomer finish all of his edits. If he finishes, however, and the "Response" section is similar to how it currently stands, I will be sure to take action.  But hopefully you can remind him of Wikipedia policies and prevent that from happening. WGee 00:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I do have some little experience from Swedish Wiki, doing some writing about Palestine a year ago (most of it translations from English WIKI). The Arbitration system I found Yesterday in the help section.

Well, regarding AFA, just look at their homepage, where they admit to be Anarchistic and to do use illegal methods in their work. The reference to the article in the magazine Creole also states that a revolution by creating chaos is what one of their key persons want. So I think its well sourced. The links between AFA and EXPO are also well documented. So when you use such dubious sources for your allegations against the Swedish Democrats it must be balanced by also informing just how extreme and not NPOV these organizations are. To understand why a mainstream national party like the Swedish Democrats is treated so very different in Sweden compared to how similar parties are treated in England or Denmark (Conservative Party or Danish People’s Party) one must also understand the uniqueness of the Swedish situation. Before I intervened and started to balance the article, the amount of slander was completely disproportionate compared to how controversial the party is in an international perspective. It’s only by understanding how much different the Swedish perspective is, that one can understand why such an amount of slandering is regularly produced in the Swedish debate. That in Sweden there actually exist a factory created with taxpayers money for creating slander and allegations mainly against the Swedish Democrats. This is a construction that doesn’t exist in any other western democracy. The reason for this construction is obvious. To demonize the Swedish Democrats and make them seen far more extreme then they in fact are. You yourself are an example of the success of this strategy. You rate them as extreme as British BNP, not because anything in their official policy – but based on this slander. And because of this you want to include all this slander in the article.

If you created an organization like Expo in any country they can of course create slander and allegations against any political party, depending on how you aim such an organization. The immigration - industry of Sweden consumes almost 15% of our GNP, why should it not create an instrument for propaganda to keep its wheels turning? Its not conspiracy theories, its logic and common sense. SweHomer 01:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know about the four ~ but i keeps forgeting. I try to better myself! Again 'Liftarn' have removed my contribution. How am i supposed to work on it and make it better when its constantly deleted? SweHomer 14:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You could discuss your changes on the talk page first. You additions are both highly controversial and entierly unsourced. Not a good combination. // Liftarn 19:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats exacly what i want you to do. As WGee, me and FloNight have agreed about. That is what I am doing with your work, (I am not deleting but discssing) and that what I want you to do with my work. There are objections you are having that i think is valid and i will change som of it.SweHomer 15:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

WGee again delets
I'm getting sick of this. Obviously he think he is my superior and some sort of administrator for this page. I must be able to work under the same conditions as he does. He does not check with me before enter material to the page, but states that I have to do this. Can you do something about this? SweHomer 17:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

FloNight/Intelligent_design
Hi! I moved FloNight/Intelligent_design to User:FloNight/Intelligent_design. I don't think you really meant to put it in the main space so in the interest of WP:BOLD moved it to your user space. ---J.Smith 07:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Your message
Yes, it's a bit of a mess; they're all behaving pretty badly. I blocked SweHomer for 3RR, and was treated to a series (five so far) of e-mails. Wikipedia would be so much pleasanter to work on if we abolished all articles on politics, religion, and sex (oh, and computer games...). --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I felt that it was not fair. I was the one not deleting other peoples work, but trying to argument under the talk page. I was the one who followed the advice from Flonight. Its obvious that liftarn and WGee clams ownership of the page. Flonight who is the administrator who have followed this closest also was going to ask you to ban them, not me for ignoring her advice. Something I have not done. When I reinserted what they deleted I was only following her advice, that my work should not be deleted, but discussed.

Also I have stated openly that I am a member (on low level) of this Party and that this can implicate bias. My view of the page is that it has a clear journalistic approach. They are trying to use Wiki to “reveal” Sweden Democrats “true” nature. A propagandistic approach. They take no measures to check the bias of their sources, but are in fact mainly using the most bias source there is, Expo. They aggregate slander to prove a point. They mass allegations from the past to prove that the Swedish Democrats is much more extreme than they are. The Swedish Democrats openly admits that this problems have existed and took strong actions against extremism during 1995-2000. In the last six only one or two minor incidents have occurred regarding extremist sneaking into the party. Those persons have immanently been expelled from the party, with of course ‘liftarn’ very well knows, but this he don’t add to the page. So to use incidents prior to year 2000 to prove that the Swedish Democrats today have extremist as members is bias and propagandistic. Something a journalist can do in a tabloid magazine – but Wiki should not be used as a propaganda tool for Expo. The way liftarn is working is in fact exactly how Expo works. WGee is somewhat better, its possible to reason with him with the help of Flonight – but I have the clear impression that ‘liftarn’ is the boss of the two, and using WGee. All the allegations against SD is (as far as I can see) transferred from ‘liftarn’ to WGee. On the Swedish page it’s the same problem. The user ‘rapvatten’ (a VERY unique name, =burphwater) is acting exactly as ‘liftarn’ does here. The same ‘rapvatten’ is also active on the page “socialist.nu” where he argues for attacking Swedish Democrats meetings and so on. So for me it’s a very strong possibility that both liftarn and rapvatten represents EXPO/AFA. SweHomer 19:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you help me edit my work?
Hi,

I have revritten most of it - but i am not happy with the structure and the language. And perhaps there is others things to that should be changed.

Regards, SweHomer 20:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

WGee reverts
WGee again put back what you took out, and we have not agreed about this, in fact i clearly stated i disagreed.SweHomer 23:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Jayne Vercoe
Thanks for your re-examination of this article, for which you had suggested further referencing, and for your removal of the notability tag in view of my provision of more references. I actually will have a few more print references to add, and provide page references for a couple of the newspaper articles, so it will only get more precise. I also added some references for Bridget Mary Nolan as you had also requested (and possibly a few more to come), though that article was never tagged so there is no further action needed on that one. I am wondering if you would mind please also having a look at my article on Cindy Leanne Howell which also has a notability tag at present, and for which I have also now provided further references (and again, with print references still to come), to see if you believe that this now has sufficient basis for removal of the tag. (I have provided a comment about one of the online sources on the article's discussion page, also). If you would like to discuss any aspects of the article, I would be happy for that too. Many thanks! --SilverWings 08:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Can LIFTARN and WGEE please recpect the advice from FloNight.
Again you are taking turns in reverting. Can you please stop this and restore text to the version FloNight put it in?

"Do not remove or re-insert text without discussion leading to consensus. You have been asked nicely by myself and Mel."

I put this in the "talk" page of everyone, so there can me no further accidents. These to reverts were of course not done on purpose, you both just missed to read what Flonight wroteSweHomer 12:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Your message
I'm afraid that both sides are interested only in pushing their own political viewpoint, and have no interest either in neutrality and objectivity or in Wikipedia. I think that the page needs to be ptotected for a while, and also listed at RfC. I'll do the latter first, and see what happens. You've done your best, but I think that they're just not going to listen. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Your message
Yes, my e-mail is not activated. It's one way of ensuring transparency: all my interactions at Wikipedia are conducted on-site. Is there some reason I should change this policy? Durova 17:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * FloNight, I did not accuse SweHomer of anything in my original message to Durova. As you can see, I simply told Durova what each side was complaining about.  Also, why do you see the need to privately discuss things with editors?  From first glance it seems rather suspicious. ---WGee 19:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It has absolutely nothing to do with Sweden Democrats or any of the editors. I wanted to ask Durova a question about a completely unrelated matter.  FloNight   talk  20:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, if you insist. ---WGee 20:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Who is this, the communication police? How could talking to people outside of Wikipedia give any reason for "suspicion" about anything? Good grief the Internet makes people paranoid. --DanielCD 23:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Tabloid image
These images are specifically designed to be POV and/or elicit emotional response, and the vast majority of them have been retouched. There's no question at all in my mind that this picture should be excluded. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. --DanielCD 16:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Katelyn Faber
Thank you for your response. I tried speaking with Tufflaw, but he/she refuses to respond directly to the statements in which I refute his/her fallacious reasoning. I didn't know there was a difference between mediation and arbitration, and would welcome your advice on other procedures. Can you advise me on how to proceed? Thanks. Nightscream 18:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Kobe Bryant
Thanks for the information on the fair use issue with the photographs. The primary reason I've always avoided dealing with photographs (haven't ever added or removed one on any page) is because I've just been too darned lazy to properly educate myself on what does/does not constitute fair use of them. LOL 8-) So your information about one photo's use impacting the fair use of others is an enlightenment to me. Thanks again.

With that in mind, I will indeed review the article to see what needs to be cleaned up in that regard.

Right at this moment, I need to turn my attention to finishing off my taxes, but I'll definitely come back on-line at some point tonight and have a look at that. Mwelch 01:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've had a look. It would appear that all but two of the pictures on the page are from posters. The two which are not are indeed of dubious origin with regard to their fair use, but each has already been listed at Possibly unfree images, so I'd assume that process should play out before removing either.

With regard to the rest, the wording of the sportsposter copyright tag says that using a poster is fair use if the the image is being used to illustrate the sporting event depicted in the image. It doesn't explicitly mention that only one such image can be used, but even if that is the case, I would presume that it would be one image per event that is being discussed, rather than only one image in the entire article that discusses many such events. Would that be your understanding as well?

If my reading is correct, I would think that aside from the two aforementioned photos that are already under review, the only other ones that might be problematic would be the two present in the Kobe Bryant section, since neither photo relates to events discussed direction in that section, and possibly the photo at the top of the page, since that's just a this-is-Kobe-Bryant-photo, rather than one that relates to a specific sporting event.

All of the other photos seem to meet the standard of being one and only one photo being used to illustrate a particular sporting event that is specifically discussed in the section of the article in which the photo appears. So I'd think that they are all OK.

As I mentioned though, I'm very much a newbie with regard to the issue of fair use of images. So before I actually alter the article to apply my above judgment, I'd appreciate your feedback as to whether you think I'm interpreting the matter correctly.

Thanks! Mwelch 06:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting indeed! If indeed the fair use is that restrictive (must be an article exclusively about X; cannot be in a section of article about Y that discusses X), then that clarification might be a good thing to add to the WP:Fair use page and/or to the applicable copyright tags themselves.

Thanks for your diligence in the matter. I'm eager to hear what the second opinion you solicit says about it. Mwelch 03:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi FloNight, thanks for the kind words on my talk page and calming words on the Katelyn Faber talk page. I have no problem assuming good faith with respect to Nightscream bringing the RFA out of turn (although with nearly 2000 edits and the fact that he's been an editor for a year now, one would think he'd be aware of the procedures), but my real problem is that he took the time to personally contact several arbitrators and several dozen random users in an attempt to color the discussion by sending a skewed version of the events with a negative slant about me - and yet didn't bother to inform me that he had filed the RFA. Even assuming good faith, I find that to be troubling and disingenuous. Regardless, it's not worth getting upset over - I just wanted to thank for getting involved and for being the voice of reason. Tufflaw 04:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Who is Dr Moore?
http://www.theandros.com/emoore/ LoveMonkey 04:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Your revert
Why did you revert my removal of warnings from an external links section? I am not particularly set on them being removed, but I was following a precedent several others have set before justified by WP:Not. It was my understanding that links on Wikipedia should not have such disclaimers. (And if they must have them, they should not be so poorly formatted.) – T i f e g o(t) 00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

C. Sexuality
I think you are right; a lot of articles need work. I'll try to look when I get some time today since I know you are actively working on it. --DanielCD 14:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

SCOTW: Chronospecies finally makes it!
These are the comments on the nomination, which may be helpful in improving the article:
 * Lots of potential for this little article like examples, causes, and general elaboration. Neum 04:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * A great fact to include would be the shortest time over which speciation of a sexual organism is known to have occurred. &mdash;James S. 21:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

In other news:
 * SCOTW needs a new maintainer, and could to with a maintenance bot. If you know of anybody who may be interested in either task, please let them know!

User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Age of consent
LOL! It's not pretty enough. I much prefer the cool kid jumping. Actually from a graphic design point of view it's too wide. The Page layout calls for a taller than wide image. Oh well ;) -- Monotonehell 11:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

POV and MR C
Hi FloNight, I got your message(s). I left you a response on my talk. Where exactly shall we chat, here? My talk? Mr Christopher 13:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure where the heck to put this conversation...Your talk or mine...But here goes...You said lots, including

"Mr Christopher, this is my opinion and interpretation of WP policy and guidelines. I'm making these suggestions to help you. If these suggestions are not helpful, then feel free to ignore. : )"


 * Flo, I very much appreciate you taking to time to address some of this with me and your comments are helpful. I have been rethinking some of my contributions and I think I have a better grip on where I am going wrong.  As a result I've been able to come up with some ideas how I can make better contributions (and fix a few existing ones).


 * Also, most of the subjects that interest me are in fact related and the controversial part(s) are the most noteworthy to me. I don't want to paint things in a "negative" way (though I recognize controversy is often condsidered a pejorative and pointing out controversy is often viewed as being "negative"), more like just making sure the painting includes all the colors in the subjects rainbow.  I also reread some of my article contributions and they do in fact look alot more like original research because they lack citations.  I'll work on improving that.  I am going to be out of town soon so my improvements might not be as speedy as I would like them to be.


 * As far as the long "lecture" I wrote on the alcoholism talk page, I knew full well that my comments on the Talk page represented POV, bias, and original research. I would never put that in the article itself but that came from an ongoing frustration that is present in that article.  The alcoholism article could use someone like you to help getting started in a positive direction :-)


 * Anyhow, I already have some plans to improve some of what you have brought to my attention. It might take some time for me to make them but I'll drop you a note when I have done so and see about getting your input once those changes have been made.  Cheers! Mr Christopher 20:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Flo when you have a spare moment would you walk down the hall to Rational Recovery and tell me what you think of my latest efforts? I know you're busy so when and if you get time. Mr Christopher 07:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Masters of the Universe
Hi. An unregistered user by the name of EmperorSkeletor keeps re-inserting unsourced material into the Masters of the Universe article that is not consistent with other articles on such movies. If you could take a look at the Talk page for that film, and see my reasons why the material is not appropriate, and advise me of how to proceed further, I'd appreciate it. I know that my side did not come off shiningly in the previous discussion on the Faber page, but I think you'll agree that my position on this one is solid. Right now, there are only two posts on that Talk page, both by me, as EmperorSkeletor refuses to engage in discussion, and is now misrepresenting my words in his Edit Summaries. What should I do? Thanks. Nightscream 05:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello there, FloNight . I would welcome an informal mediator in this dispute, although I will be honest and say uprfront that I'm not interested in dragging this out for very long, as I certainly have better things to do. I don't know why Nightscream claims that I am refusing to converse over this matter; my posts above are proof to the contrary.


 * Firstly, I'd just like to reiterate my broader argument; the vast majority of Wikipedia articles on topics such as this contain predominantly unsourced information. Seriously! Read any article on a Star Wars character, a television series, a science-fiction movie, a toyline, and you will find little if any sourcing being used. The occasional references cited at the ends of articles are entirely generalised and routinely contain no direct indications of which aspects of the articles' content is being sourced. Now, Nightscream is correct about one thing; the rules ARE clear. But I flat -out disagree with his assessment that this is "no excuse" to include (or, in this case, preserve) relevant TRUE information which, by its very nature cannot be proven. I think it is absurd to expect me (or rather, the original writer of this content) to be held to a higher standard of proof than what is clearly being employed by the majority of users who contribute to these topics. If Wikipedia was an academic journal (such as I have been published in in my professional life) with rules which everyone actually obeyed, naturally I would follow suit. But Wikipedia is not, or at least certainly is not in its thousands of pop culture articles.


 * I feel like I'm being arrested for jaywalking by the one honest cop from an otherwise entirely corrupt precinct. What's the point of a law if hardly anyone else follows it?


 * But anyway, that's my drum to beat and I don't much expect you to agree with me. All I'd say about that in closing is that if users like Nightscream truly went around deleting every unsourced fact in Wikipedia's pop culture articles then I'd wager you'd see the overall content drop by about 85%. I'm not kidding.


 * Finally, to my main point for your consideration, FloNight, is the current status of the article, or rather the section, under dispute. Despite totally disagreeing with Nightscream, I have created a new, far shorter version of the "Continuity" section which I believe no longer contains ANY unsourced information, short of merely mentioning the disputed fan-theory and providing a link to a more appropriate page. I have even acquiesced to re-include his Teela content which I still believe would be better placed under "Trivia". I made all these compromises not because I think it is the right thing to do, but truthfully just to try and placate Nightscream and cease his tedious cycle of deletions. However, he has edited it yet again, truncating it quite uneccessarily (I find his arguments above for doing so thoroughly unconvincing) and, if I may be frank, in a rather poor and hurried fashion with an ugly text-block layout. It certainly reads badly and is now rather inelegantly written. And, unsurprisingly, Nightscream still begrudges me even mentioning the fan-theory and deferring it's discussion to a more relevant article. With all due respect to him/her, I feel this is verging on either pettiness or a truly fanatical belief in the (largely unobserved) rules.


 * I would appreciate any help you could provide as a mediator, FloNight.


 * Thanks, EmperorSkeletor.

Ron Karenga
See reply, my talk page. Merecat 19:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Again. Merecat 22:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Lumpkin (sexual activity)
On my Lumpkin Article... I know that you removed the video link because of popups, but can I just put a straight link to the video itself, I mean, striaight to the .WMV file itself, ... and announce it as a link to a video right below the link? Bubby the Tour G 16:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Several people have removed it. The reason I removed it is because it is unencyclopedic. It is unflattering to the older women on the video. WP:BLP advises users against harming non-notable people. So, sorry no. -- FloNight  talk  16:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

David Boyd (artist)
Looks much better :) agapetos_angel 23:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just tweaked it a little bit more. Will probably work on it off and on forever, since articles never are done. FloNight   talk  12:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Koala
Love the picture, but please call them by their proper name. They are not "bears", just koalas! Us Aussies get very grumpy about our fauna being treated disrespectfully! MulgaBill 07:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Did I call a Koala a bear? FloNight   talk  12:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Rind
Thanks for your note. I've responded at the PAW talk page. Cheers, -Will Beback 22:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

W.S. Gilbert
I hate to be difficult, but I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but, having most of his plays to hand and a strong interest in him, I've decided to work on the somewhat awful page for W.S. Gilbert, which was committing possibly the cardinal sin of encyclopædia articles: Editorialising about how Gilbert was only important because of the things he did that helped other people, and that all his plots were borrowed from other operas (and then giving an example that a few minutes fact-checking showeed was wrong - which is PARTICULARLY oddsince he DOES have several major borrowings: Sorcerer has strong structural borrowings from L'elisir d'amore, and one of Mountebanks' subplots takes much of Act I of L'elisir and makes it all far more nasty and mean.) Oh, and it's not helped that one of the authors he mentions as being so much byeetter and more important than Gilbert (Oscar Wilde) specifically said that Gilbert's Engaged directly inspired his most famous work, The Importance of Being Earnest...

...It's a mess, and I want to fix it, but could really use a mentor to help me with stylistic issues. For instance, I found a quote by Jessie Bond, completely in the public domain, that's perfect for introducing the section on German-Reed's work towards the cleaning up of London theatre, in which Gilbert became intimately involved for several years. Without that quote, understanding why German-Reed was important becomes difficult, but I haven't seen other articles using very much actual source material...

...Is there anywhere I can go for help?

Adam Cuerden 00:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem
Keep doing good work, and remember that Wikipedia's a long-term project. In most instances, the feuds we find ourselves in today on Wikipedia will seem like a distant memory in a few months, so try not to stress too much over any one thing. Best &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 13:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
I actually consider myself to be a potential friend of Jefferson Poland. I am doing what I can to re-connect him with Sam Sloan, so that they may resume their personal friendship. I added back only that the "View on Map" button does not work if you just bring up his profile because the design of the web site is to prevent general map-based browsing until you click a checkbox on a disclaimer which sets up the web session information. I personally think that the Megan's Law web site goes to far, but I cannot change it, so the best I can do is inform the reader about it in an NPOV manner. If Mr. Poland does resume his friendship with Sam Sloan, I am hope some good comes of it for both of them. Perhaps they will co-author another book. They are both talented men, each in their own right, and more complete memoirs from them would provide interesting and valuable life-lessons, especially for young people in making life choices. I am not referring to Mr. Poland's legal problems, I am talking about two men who at least bothered to live full and notable lives: mistakes, successes and all. I benefit greatly in my efforts to find NPOV by not caring an iota more for that little girl he was with than for Poland himself. I do not feel sorry for either of them. The girl and the man are both free Americans and, in a sense, I am envy them both. -- Pro123tester 17:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Now, I am quite aware that Jimbo already gave himself that pathetic un-American excuse of W not being about free press or free speech or anything like that. But what you are doing is trying to censor me. Now, you know that you cannot Earthlink pages unilaterally because we both live in America. But you ripped out my comments on a article "talk" page because you did not like them. How much different is that than me coming inot your community there in Kentucky (which, thank God, Lincoln managed to somehow keep in the Union during the Civil War), and let's just say that you had a public library with an old-fashioned card catalog system, and I knew the books that you especially liked, (maybe by looking on the old chek-out cards they used to have you sign) and then I methodically and completely ripped out of the shelves all the card catalog cards for those books so that neither you nor anybody else could ever easily find them agin. That would not be very nice of me, huh? You think? Now, I repsect the fact that you are a nurse. I myself married a pediatrician but she got rid of me once she got what she wanted out of me, which was a child and 17 of child support and very brief spell in jail for me. But I am completely capable of maintaining an NPOV and you, ma'am, are the one having the problem maintaining NPOV. Now, would please consider acknowledging as much? I have been very sincere and honest with you for telling you about my own mistakes that I could have kept private because I still trust you to recognize your mistake. And do not give me any lip about that little girl being a minor, thank you very much. Everything on my page about her was already out there on the Internet. I just organized it better. -- Pro123tester 19:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr C part two
Flo I have been out of town and haven't had much time to contribute here lately but thank you kindly for the links and info on State physician impairment programs. I thought this sort of riff raff ended 10 years ago. Astonishing.

Also, I saw where you removed three reference books/links I added to the cult article. I am going to address that on the talk page there. Basically - why? :-)

Anyhow, thanks again Mr Christopher 04:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Flo, I wrote this enormous narrative at the cult talk page and then thought it might be more appropriate here. I am still trying to figure out some of the norms of where these conversations belong. Feel free to copy or move this to the talk page (or my own) if you think it belongs elsewhere.

Here goes:


 * Flo, thanks for your reply and we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. And here is why - You wrote,


 * "I know for example that many people go to AA under the threat of penality like losing MD/RN lic., court mandated diversion programs, or a condition for parole. This is not something that someone would expect to happen with a cult"


 * Agreed. And that is not something that someone would expect to happen with a religion either.  Yet in the 5 or so federal and state court cases where the religiosity and mandated attendance of Alcoholics Anonymous has been challenged, in each case A.A. has been found by the courts to be "a religion", "religious", and/or "religious movement" and thus ruled in favor of the plaintiff.  The United States Supreme Court heard one of those contested cases and they too ruled for the plaintiff.  Not exactly what one who goes to AA under the threat of penalty would expect.  But the fact that the majority of people are not aware of this, and therefore would not expect it, does not mean it doesn't exist.


 * So what people may expect might not necessarily reflect what actually has been proven. And I don't think the majority opinion (whether positive or negative) ought to silence the observations, research findings and conclusions (opinions) from those minority voices who have not reached the masses.


 * And you said this article had sufficient cult/new religious movment cites, yet it does not have a single one related to popular recovery movements that are embraced by the masses. Movements  that have been the subject of a significant body of work by legitimate researchers and even court cases.  On the other hand, and correct me if I am mistaken, but I don't think anyone would object if I posted links to research regarding Scientology because popular opinion is not favorable towards Scientology.  I think we live in a culture that is very uncomfortable at times examining "religious movements" that the majority perceives are benefitial.  I think there is a resistance at times to examine these groups and the minority voice who has done the examination and posits conclusions that portray something other than widely held beliefs are viewed as negative.  The negative "tag" is not based on the merits of the research done by the minority, but because the conclusions contradict the majority opinion and their expectations.  As a Wiki reader, I am always interested in the ideas of both the majority and minority.  That is how I reach my own conclusions and feel like I am making an informed decision.


 * And we're talking about links here, not offensive or POV article content that tries to dog AA. So in my own mind I thought these cites were highly relevant.


 * You know by now (or I hope you do) I have a good deal or respect for your opinion here and I have appreciated your input and support, but on this one you and I will have to agree to disagree. I am cool with that.  :-)  Mr Christopher 07:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

W.S. Gilbert
Right! Thanks for the help so far! I've checked the quotes I've used, and one MAY be in copyright, another definately is, but both of these seem to come under fair use, as they're short, to the point, and relatively far from the key reasons for getting the things they quote from anyway. The Quotes from La Viviandre are DEFINATELY out of copyright, since I got them from an ancient Victorian libretto I photocopied at the National Liberary of Scotland, and their author died in 1911. I've given my reasons for why I think the questionable quotes are fair use on the Discussion Page at that article. Have I done it correctly? Adam Cuerden 20:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Smith
It would be good for someone to take him in hand if you're willing to do it. He seems at least to be willing to listen if you feel like it. Best &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 22:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The site at ] is run by United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians members. They have about a dozen folks they are mobilizing to vandalize that article.  Just to let you know to expect vandalism and postings from several ranges from these folks.  They have three active folks behaving as meatpuppets to vandalize the article.  I tried to reason with them today (I doubt you folks speak Cherokee but I do and tried to restrain them) to no avail.  The UKB Chief is apparently using this group for POV pushing to hide the embarrassments of the prosecutions and other materials.  Just to to be a little bird and let you know what's up here.  They are Cherokee so they won't stop.  You need to go to indefinite blocks are it will just continue. 67.169.249.44 01:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Goethean is at it again
Neoplatonism and Gnosticism he has put the article up for delection AGAIN. How is deleting this article not retailation and censureship? LoveMonkey 01:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Fresh action here. I thought we had been over this. --DanielCD 01:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Cyde
...is going about adding nonsense to people's userpages. I've never blocked an admin-level user before, so could you second my comments on his talk page if you agree? --DanielCD 02:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Some kind of April fools thing. These people are characters. --DanielCD 02:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I was looking through his contrib list, thinking he must be drunk, then it hit me April 1. -- FloNight  talk  02:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This is bullshit. I ought to... well maybe I'll just go play a game.


 * No harm done. But I wish they wouldn't do that. That could really start a fight. --DanielCD 02:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The talk on his talk page seems to indicate he's been blocked. Since so much BS has been flying over the last 12 hours, I don't know if that's true or not. But whatever. He may have been blocked before this started, which make my momentary ideation of blocking him even more of a cute deal.


 * These people are characters. --DanielCD, March 31

--DanielCD 15:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Aminto The Da Vinci Game
Hi FloNight, Many thanks for creating the article on The Da Vinci Game - I really appreciate it! I went to update the arbitration page, but couldn't find it. Did you remove it from there? If so, thanks again, I wasn't sure where to start the discussion and that seemed the most intuitive place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminto (talk • contribs)


 * Sounds good! I don't have any preference myself on what happens with the article, but if there's a good stub to be made there, great, and nice comments to Aminto, too. (Though I have to admit I was tickled at the chance to make a statement on an RfAr from the other side!) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

neoplatonism & gnosticism
I have had this article reviewed by professor Moore. I have the email. I can forwatd it to you. Professor Moore is part of the international neoplatonic society. I have not add more to article because I am corresponding with him. Please of members http://www.isns.us/directory/america-canada/index.htm http://www.isns.us/directory/europe/index.htm

This is the whos who of philosophy. Goethian is EVERYTHING THAT PEOPLE HAVE CRITIZED WIKIPEDIA ABOUT. Your poster posts new age groups in California as sources for ancient greek culture (Noetic). Not greek scholars. He is openly made fun of online and wikipedia indirecty because of him. See the falk blog as one of his own examples. Because of some of the ridiculous nonsense articles(see the historically incorrect nonsense article- Gnosticism and the New Testament- for pure shame and embarassment) also because of the embaressingly stupid fighting on wikipedia I can not get scholars to come and post here. This article as well as the made up theory posted under plotinus' bio are fantastic examples. I was able to get this scholar [|Professor Moore] out of the kindness of his heart to review an article that a new age @#$% is now suggesting be DELETED. LoveMonkey 04:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Deathtrap (play)
I'm sorry to bother you again, but I found a fantastically inappropriate redirect: and don't know what to do. The linked article has no information on the play. Adam Cuerden 18:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 20:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

OMG
Well Ms. Lolicon of 2006 is finally gone. What a long, tiring, distracting process. Unbe-freaken-lievable how many people think this image should be included who are not trolls or idiots. Fair-use activists wore me down on the IfD, but the overall problem is people who are like "Well in some cultures its OK to do such-and-such but not such-and-such, why should we delete this but not the Mohammed pictures, because after all who can say what's 'right' and 'wrong'?" (To which I feel like answering Um, how about people who have the moral sense that God gave sheep"). Not to mention political sense. Erg. Anyway, thanks for being there, it felt good to have you by my side. Herostratus 14:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
I am sorry for adding nonsense to Wikipedia. I will use the sandbox in future. Jamie.

Charming.... a username block probably wouldn't have been contested, but it doesn't end up mattering, since all that account has been used for is vandalizing. Blocked. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 19:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images
I notice that you're using fair use images on User:FloNight/DanielCD. However, please note that fair use of copyrighted images cannot be claimed outside mainspace articles - please could you therefore remove these? Thanks, CLW 10:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Spooky! Thanks, CLW 10:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

re: links
Yes I understand what you're saying. No, I don't think that links to child porn should be included in articles. At Lolicon, I don't expect people to be reasonable about this. That leaves edit warring or an RfC. I think an RfC would be much the better path. True, you could lose, but if you can't win on an RfC from the whole community, you're sunk anyway. Here's what I drafted to post at talk:Lolicon. I didn't post it, awaiting your thoughts. If you want to post it in your words under your name, that would OK. More than OK really since, although I will surely support you, I don't especially want to be point man on this. But I'll post it myself if desired. If it is posted, my personal recommendation would be to wait a couple days for people to respond/blow of steam before beginning the RfC. Herostratus 20:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

''Here's what I'm thinking: the question of external links, not just in this article but in similar articles. Ought there not be a general standard or guideline about external links to objectionable material.

''It could be argued that linking to websites of discussion forums and amateur art is not, in general, the function of an encyclopedia. While in many cases perhaps this can be either waived or, if controversial, discussed and decided by the editors involved in the article, on this page I'm not so sure. WP:EL provides some material but not a definitive answer. The talk page at WP:EL indicates that links to any fansites etc. at all is controversial at least.

''Therefore I think that the question of disputable links should be taken to an RfC, not in any way with intent to be confrontational, but simply to get an advisory opinion from the larger community.


 * Update: User:Steve block - I think he's doing penance for having argued so effectively against a copyvio disallowance of The Image - removed the link function, keeping it as text only, per this message from Jimbo. I'm not sure what to think about that. Herostratus 08:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Paulus RFAr
I certainly understand the case load, but we've been through two polls and a mediation already. I've offered several compromises and have bent over backwards many, many times as can clearly be seen in the talk pages -- I've continually conceded and redone my suggestions in the hopes that something would finally be accessible to them. But nothing will, and they are clearly not willing to compromise on the issue because every single "suggestion" they offer is a rewrite of the same paragraph that locks the point of the debate out over and over. They act as if they run the Aiken page because they feel they do. The POV is rampant and has crossed the line of reason. I certainly have no plans on dropping it, regardless of that being their ultimate goal. So I don't see a solution possible without intervention. Possibility of rejection or not, I can only hope that the admins realize that nearly a month of having a page protected and the pages upon pages of stuff in the talk show there's a problem that can't be handled between us. I just want this to be over with and short of leaving the debate (which I'm not going to do) I don't think it's ever going to end. - mixvio 03:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I followed all the outlines in the dispute resolution guideline, so I can't think of any steps I missed. This issue has been going on for over a month and during all this time I've tried very hard to manage the issue on my own. I'm not the only person arguing my position - not by a long shot, and if I were I'd let it go. But I'm the most prolific and it's immensely frustrating that the issue's been hijacked by people who run out to grab their friends and leave messages on forums to harass me. In response to your questions:


 * What are you trying to accomplish with the RFAr?
 * I'm trying to have the debate ended fully and completely. Note, that I don't want it ended with my side in-tact and victorious, I just want the issue decided. I feel that those of us in the debate are incapable of coming to an agreement on our own. I have placed a request for comments and some people took the chance to leave some; I will note in this that most of the ones who came to leave comments left comments in my favor. But regardless, whether my viewpoint is chosen or not, I don't think a solution is going to work without non-appellate intervention. I realize that the admins typically weigh-in on people conflicts, but I can't see any other process to decide content disputes. If it's not settled and taken out of our hands we'll be editing back and forth until we explode.


 * Are there other methods of dispute resolution that are more appropriate?
 * I tried all of the steps in the dispute resolution process, and after the failed mediation, the opinion of the mediator was the issue was damaged and not likely to be fixed by us. He suggested the admins.


 * Will the parties to the dispute be willing to listen to input from the wider Wikipedian community?
 * This is where I am unsure. I opened the issue to comments from others by posting the request but not as many people came as I hoped they would. I made the request because I feel if the consensus were clearer or there were a stronger majority one way or the other it would make the issue easier to deal with. Unfortunately it's split nearly down the middle. Regardless, while they claim that they'd listen to outsider input, I don't know if I believe they would. The main antagonists in the debate have an almost god-like, religious reverence and I think this issue has transcended into something much, much worse and deeper for them. As I said once, a neutral party would think that Paulus was accusing each of them of having unprotected sex with them with the way they act as if his allegations are a personal attack against themselves.


 * If yes, do you think a content Rfc is appropriate?
 * If a clearer consensus came out, or at least a supermajority, I would personally drop my dispute if the consensus/majority showed the view was strongly on their side. If they agreed to the same, there'd be no need for intervention, but unfortunately this hasn't happened.


 * If no, do you think a behavior Rfc is appropriate for the person not willing to listen to the opinion of the wider community?
 * If they refused to listen to the majority/consensus if it ruled against them, then ofcourse outside help would be necessary. - mixvio 04:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

email
Yes, of course you can email me. I don't know why email isn't active from my user page; I thought I had registered it.

No, I didn't see your comments on the email list yet, it's hard keeping up with everything.

Yeah, the email list is good. I suppose eventually it'll start collecting trolls too, although maybe not since it's moderated.

Yeah I wanted to make a statement on the email list in the next couple days re pedophilia and pedophilia POV on Wikipedia, and maybe point out the existance of the project in case any editors wanted to help out. My statement is not necessarily going to be to your liking, since we don't see eye-to-eye about everything, but that's OK.Herostratus 18:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is this email list at? I've never seen it. What is it, do they post the emails we send to each other? --DanielCD 19:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

2004 Ukranian child pornography raids
Hello Thebainer : ) Thank- you for switching the article name and cleaning up the article. I thought about doing that myself. Much better for you to do it. Hope the unsourced information stays out. -- FloNight  talk  03:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it seemed like the most sensible solution. I'll be watching the article closely from now on too. --bainer (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Me too FloNight, don't worry about it. Herostratus 01:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. -- FloNight  talk  14:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Are ya'll going to do a series on the raids that have taken place over the last six years or so? It would be a good source of information for ppl doing research to have a list of KP raids that have happened, as there have been quite a few. --DanielCD 15:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see some stuff at Category:Child pornography crackdowns, but what about the Candyman raid? --DanielCD 15:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Chad Smith and Johnc1
Hi KateFan0, User:Johnc1 is back and posted defamation in the article again. You may want to take a look at his edits. Sint Holo 19:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * FloNight: by way of background, you may find this thread from the "blog" informative: http://www.network54.com/Forum/237458/message/1144111446/Chad+Smith+Re-election+Supporters+Needed -- talks_to_birds 23:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"city hick"?
Hi FloNight, did you mean to reinsert "city hick" at White trash? Are you sure it's a real term? --Allen 21:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I figured it had to be something like that.  --Allen 00:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

n&g
THANK YOU! So very very very much..You and danielCD are very unappreciated the guys are the best.. LoveMonkey 03:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks for the help in the Aiken page situation. I've been sitting at your and Will's feet metaphorically for a couple of weeks now. Unfortunately, the PAW project hits a little too close to home for me, so I doubt I could be helpful often. Still, I'm learning by observing. Thanks also for a rv you just made that I didn't dare make, and, if you think it warrants it, there was an accidental deletion here. I appreciate the positive modeling. -Jmh123 03:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I look forward to more time for other Wikipedia projects myself.  Went to Katefan's page to leave a note of thanks, and saw your comment, so I included a brief addition there.  Thanks again!  -Jmh123 17:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)