User talk:Guettarda/Archive9

My RfA
I give this cat to you for giving your support to my RfA. Thank you very much! I will not let you or anyone else down. Denelson83 21:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

FSF RFA
Thanks for your support. :) freestylefrappe 18:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Coolies image
Check out the Formats Available For Download table and choose the HTML row - in this case the first row in the table...use the anchor main site ... gets you here. Hope this helps. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Abramoff etc.
Hey there. Well, I just got involved a few minutes ago myself, but given this user's history I am not inclined to give much rope. This user is, I suspect, a sockpuppet of another extremely disruptive editor Long John Silver/Jimmy Cracked Corn/DKorn/DEastman/etc. etc. who created a lot of problems on Ray Nagin, trying to push the POV that Katrina was more a local failure than a federal one. Anyway, I just happened to see this John Henry sock place a vandalism report on WP:VIP and, suspicious, I went to the article he referenced, this gambling/Abramoff deal. It appears that John Henry keeps placing a speedy tag on the article seeking to have it deleted for copyvio reasons (and now he's switched to adding the copyvio tag itself, without a referencing website). He hasn't really explained what he believes the copyvio to be, except to talk about the image that's being used on the page. He hasn't said anything about the text being a copyvio problem. I think he is just attempting to game the system and find a way to get the article, which is rather unflattering, deleted. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 04:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Always a pleasure.  We have to stop meeting like this. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 04:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Celestianpower is an admin
That's it. The last thank you - vote number 60 and just as appreciated as the others. Thank you very much for your support - my bid (as you probably know) went swimmingly. I couldn't have asked for a better one. Thank you very much and I just hope I don't mess up! See you on IRC soon... --Cel e stianpower hablamé 13:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry
Worry not, they talked me out of it. I'm sorry I scared you. -- Essjay ·    Talk 06:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Maillist
Yes, but I find emailing about a wiki to be abjectly superfluous, especially when it consists of unwarranted attacks alleging uncooperative editing on the part of long-time editors. Was more dissapointed to read Fred Bauder's comment calling the editors 'POV pushers', however. In my zeal to avoid e-mail, I'll avoid that mailing list. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi Guettarda! Just wanted to thank you for supporting my RfA. I hope I will be able to live up to the confidence placed in me. Nice cats, by the way. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And may I too add my thanks for your interest in RfA candidates. --Gareth Hughes 20:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Pop Music RfC
I added headings to the RfC. I did not change the content. Somebody before me must have restored vandalism. I was adding the headings to the most current version. If that was a vandalized version, then please restore the latest good version, and I will add the headings to that version. Robert McClenon 21:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The inserted comments, as you say, make it a mess. That is why I added the headings.  "Please colour inside your own lines."  Robert McClenon 21:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Can we just bomb the thing altogether? My first idea was to bomb it and start over, but I'm quite honselty completely disgusted by the whole thing. Let's just let the people in question violate the and ignore the Wikipedia rules and regulations, because they're probably going ot do it anyway, and I no longer feel like I'm doing the right thing in trying to get those articles cleaned up. --FuriousFreddy 01:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, we'll try it. I reverted the page. --FuriousFreddy 02:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ignoring Wikipedia regulations and rules? Violating them because you're disgusted by your own work, FuriousFreddy? Do not blame us for your nonsense.
 * Oh, and for the person who owns this discussion page: don't revert someone else's edits. I can say whatever I please to. That does not give you the option to remove them. --Winnermario 01:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with someone else's opinions, I will file and RfC against you for faulty generalization. --Winnermario 01:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Uh-huh. --Winnermario 19:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi

 * Earlier, you left a message on my talk page accusing me of vandalism. Well, I think you know more about this situation now to realize, I was only restoring my edits, which should nto have been moved in the first place. But with that said, I have reviewed the article, and find there to be some major problems, so I have issued a temporary revert - please note this is not vandalism, but has to do with some issues including a user's comments which were seemingly completed deleted, and various users comments moved without recieving their permission. OmegaWikipedia 08:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh no, that is my account. I used to use it when I was very meticulous with my watchlist (nowadays, I just watch everything on this account for the most part with this name.) OmegaWikipedia 11:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of Asian XI ODI cricketers
Hi. Thanks for your comment on Featured list candidates/List of Asian XI ODI cricketers. (Un?)fortunately on my browser I can't see any problem with the Muralitharan picture, which makes it difficult (or impossible) for me to see what the problem you have is and how to correct it. If you have the time, I'd be grateful if you'd look at it and tweak it yourself - or otherwise give me further guidance as to what needs to be done to correct it. Many thanks, jguk 20:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. I've tweaked the caption, so that it appears as a three-liner to me. Could you let me know whether it all looks ok in your browser? Thanks, jguk 21:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks feedback on "delete and merge" comment
Thank you for your feedback on my "delete and merge" feedback on an article. I'm pretty new, but interested in participating and appreciate such valuable feedback. I'll adjust accordingly. -Condorman 23:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

No offense taken to your further comments. It explains other comments I've seen on other AfD responses that left me confused after your original feedback. Thanks for taking the trouble to cure my ignorance. I've seen numerous occasions where a merge seemed to be the most prudent solution. For example, I was just looking at Jehovah's Witnesses, Jehovah's Witnesses litterature (sic), List of Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. due to a related AfD nomination. --Condorman 04:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

UW Bothell
You know how far I live from UW of Bothell? 20 seconds, walking time. I live across the street and up a short trail for it, and I use the trail that goes by it. It'd be great if you came to UW :) R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Question about revert
Hey ;] Thanks for letting me know on my page, about a page I reverted wrong. However, I've reverted 130+ pages today, and I'm not sure which one you meant. Can you tell me on my talk or something, so I can take a look, and figure out where I went wrong, so next time, I can pay closer attention?

Thanks for the constructive critisism ;] --VileRage ( Talk | Cont ) 02:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, I see what you mean, the nature of the content, from an anon user, didn't look kosher to me. It was however, like you said, discussed on the talk page... Sorry! ;] Thanks again for pointing that out to me ;] --VileRage ( Talk | Cont ) 02:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for your support. :) -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 11:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Linkspam
....ah. Bugger. I didn't realize that. Think I should revert my welcome, maybe even delete the talkpage? DS 16:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Warning
I am totally stealing your faux catsneeded template. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 17:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I also added a cat. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 17:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Time to move. =) I actually have two -- the white one (pictured above) and a black one.  My little yin and yang. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 17:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Cabal-less, and it's cold out here
The Zionist cabal tried to expel me for being an "Iranian Islamist jihadi," but I've appealed on the grounds that it doesn't matter which side I'm on, so long as I'm an extremist hellbent on destroying Wikipedia, which I surely and faithfully am. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

House of Angostura
Ofcourse I can explain that :) The Category:Corporation stubs is extremely overpopulated. When I started cleaning up the category, it contained (rough estimate) way over 3,000 stubs. In order to clean up the category, many articles had to be moved to already existing categories (for instance Category:Finance corporation stubs), and some new categories had to be created (like Category:Restaurant stubs). For now, drink-stub is in my opinion a better location for House of Angostura than corp-stub. Corp-stub is very broad, and is meant as a net for articles that don't fit into an already existing category. Drink-stub indicates what kind of corporation House of Angostura is: a beverage-related corporation. If there are enough articles, a new stub category can (and in my opinion should) be created: drink-corp-stub/Category:Drink corporation stubs (or something like that). That would solve this "problem." I don't think that the template and the matching category are far away, but until then, I think it's better to have the stubs in drink-stub than in corp-stub. Aecis 12:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFA/SV
Ive made a quick reply to your comments at WPT:RFA/SV re. the Unsysop issue. Thanks -St|eve 14:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Your path
I stole the flag idea from you (which you stole from Coolcat). I hope you don't mind... it was a great idea on both of your parts. -Parallel or Together? 15:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested#William_Connolley.27s_parole_-_enforcement
Hi. Can you check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested#William_Connolley.27s_parole_-_enforcement and comment if appropriate. Thanks. William M. Connolley 19:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC).


 * Hi. Let me mention that WMC has brutally violated the rules of Wikipedia, and if you follow his order, you will be a violator, too. --Lumidek 20:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Please keep your nonsensical threats to yourself. Guettarda 23:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Voluntary Wikipedia Questionnaire
My name is Oliver Metz. I am a student at Brent International School, Manila, an International school located in the Philippines. I am doing my last year of school (12th Grade) and I am writing a research paper (about 4000 words) on Wikipedia in ITGS (Information Technology in a Global Society). Of 10 randomly picked people you have been chosen as one. If you are willing and have the time to answer a few questions I would be grateful if you could fill out a short questionnaire of 6 questions.

Some Information about my essay:

My essay topic is about the freedom to collaborate and the usage of the Internet as a tool to do so. I will analyze topics such as Altruism versus Egoism as well as the Product Wikipedia itself.

My Thesis Statement: The Internet is not only a medium for communication, information and marketing but also a place for altruism, collaboration and cooperation. Wikipedia is the product of a voluntary collaborative effort that defies commonly held beliefs about human nature.

If you have any further questions or requests you would like to pose before filling out the questionnaire I'd gladly answer them.

you can write to: taklung@gmx.net (I check this e-mail address regularly)

Questionnaire:

Please answer the following questions by either inserting the answers or sending them to me via e-mail. (*are not necessarily required).

Name*: Age*: Nationality*:

1. How long have you been contributing to Wikipedia?

2. Have you or are you planning to donate money to the Wikipedia cause?

3. When you first heard of Wikipedia and the concepts it is based on, what did you think about it and did you believe it could work? What do you think now?

4. Why do you think people contribute to Wikipedia? With it being voluntary what interests do/did you follow when contributing to Wikipedia?

5. Do you think that Wikipedia appeals to Altruism? If yes, do you think such a thing can exist in our society in which greed and consumption apparently drive the world?

6. What do you think makes Wikipedia most beneficial to society?

Further comments*:

With kind regards,

Oliver Metz --TakLung 23:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment
Dear Guettarda, I have not made any attacks. I just informed you that WMC has demonstrably violated the rules of Wikipedia - parole and other things. He's like a criminal who tries to escape from the prison, and I told you that helping him out means to help someone who violates the rules. All the best, Lubos

Answer
You are asking me whether your behavior is appropriate, or whether I confused you with someone else. No, I really did not make a mistake. It is you who has been vandalizing my talk page for quite some time, who has violated the rules of civil behavior, 3-reverts-per-24-hours rule, and who has actively co-operated to hide violation of the Wikirules by William M. Connolley who is under parole. I insist that you will stop with this behavior that damages the Wikipedia community; otherwise we would have to deal with you otherwise. Best wishes, Lubos --Lumidek 11:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Enabling misbehaviour
You really should know better than enabling Lumidek's incivility and threats. I don't care what you POV is, you should not be making excuses for his threats and personal attacks. That it totally unacceptable behaviour. Guettarda 06:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * When did I approve his behavior? (SEWilco 22:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC))

A heartfelt request
I urge you in the most sincere and profound manner possible to reconsider your opposition to Requests_for_adminship/Haukurth, and in particular your reasoning for it. One of the reasons why I am willing to volunteer here is the NPOV policy, and the egalitarian nature of the project.

Nazi's, just like muslims or communists or satanists or jews have a right to edit here. User:Amalekite actualy urged users at stormfront to edit according to our rules, and to do so for the sake of promoting NPOV. The list in question was never suggested to be used to harm any wikipedian on or off line, but rather was expressed as a list of users he disliked (I believe he used vulgarities and racial slurs) whose edits he felt needed to be watched. I find it very important that off-site activities not affect on site activities.

Asking him to remove the list (Haukurth asked a stormfront admin to do so) would have been a good idea. Taking him to ArbCom would have been fine. Contgroversially perma-banning him w/o consensus and vandalising his wiki-fork until it was forced to shut down (as was done) was the worst thing I have ever seen wikipedians do. Please, I have always known you to be reasonable, please reconsider your vote. Sam Spade 21:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

User:128.101.39.45
He had made his arument for the template on Talk already, as "Wade A. Tisthammer",. His arguments didn't pass muster and have been archived. FeloniousMonk 22:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Very interesting reply considering you haven't found a way to refute my claims. In fact, looking back in the archive it seems you didn't even address the apparent distortions of science I raised concerns about.  Wade A. Tisthammer 18:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't know how to send mail here, so...
In regards to your message:


 * Hi. If you want to insert an tag (and I think you really wanted  ) you need to explain specifically how the section violates NPOV. Given the amount of trolling that page attracts, it would be much better if you could raise the issues on the Talk page first. The best thing to do is to outline the specific changes you would like to make, and why. Thanks.

I actually was referring to the factual accuracy, not POV (though the article does have POV problems). The section I was referring to did have factual errors in both philosophy of science and in some cases even intelligent design. (Criticizing ID is one thing, distorting what ID theory actually says is quite another.) BTW, I have already gone to the discussion page first. --Wade A. Tisthammer (11/3/2005)

Ozone (sigh)
Can you take a look at Ozone depletion and Ozone layer and User:Barwick's contributions (especially this). Thanks! William M. Connolley 22:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC).

Personal attacks, third opinion needed
Hi, sorry to bother you with this, but you're both not someone who is intimately involved in the issues and who has a little bit of background with them. I'd like you to review User:Winnermario's edits at User_talk:Ericorbit. The situation is a little ugly. When I tried to mediate/stick my nose in where it didn't belong I got some real nastiness back. What I am unclear about is whether it is best to continue to ignore this sort of thing or to start some sort of dispute resolution process (but what is the dispute?) out of concern that it is adversely effecting a number of editors. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks. Jkelly 02:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Puppet show. --Winnermario 13:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Puppet show. --Winnermario 16:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You shut your mouth. And my contributions will never be missed &mdash; as long as there are several hooligans on this site, I will remain to sort these issues out the proper way. Currently, all attempts have failed. But that won't be the case for much longer. Permanent blocking won't work with me, as my comeback will be uplifting. --Winnermario 16:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've had enough of you. Shut up. --Winnermario 16:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I will, and that will be editing Wikipedia. --Winnermario 16:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism you say?
Your edits in the article space amount to vandalism - please refrain from doing so. Please read the Manual of Style. In addition, your edits verge on personal attacks. Please read the No personal attacks policy. Guettarda 02:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd appreciate an explanation on how my texts amount to vandalism. I did not outright delete someone else's work (like William M Connolley did, and you subsequently did in response to his request), I supplied references for the majority of the claims, and when none were readily available (I didn't search google for them), I provided reasoning for the statements.

How is there not an introductory paragraph? Near as I can tell I complied with the MoS just fine.

If you are going to dispute my claims, then do so, don't simply delete them. WMC has tried to dispute them and has gotten nowhere with his disputes. I provided an alternative to the "CFC's are Satan" rhetoric, and he didn't like it, and so completely deleted it. Are you trying to do the same thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barwick (talk • contribs) November 4, 2005


 * 1) This edit is clear vandalism.
 * 2) Your formatting eliminated the introductory paragraph.  How can you claim otherwise?  Have you actually read the MoS?
 * 3) Explain your edits on the talk page first, and provide a reputable source.  Your edits contradict the facts as I can see them.  You said you have a source, please provide it.  Guettarda 03:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Winnermario
Hi, Guettarda, I was wondering if you would consider unblocking Winnermario? I think to be fair Ericobit did insult her major, her age, and did call her a "cunt". It was a heated argument and I think both parties have cooled down. Also, you didn't block other users did you? DrippingInk claims to have been blocked and believes you did it? Thanks for your time OmegaWikipedia 17:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I believe she is willing to be civil. Thanks Guettarda OmegaWikipedia 20:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Haukur's RFA
Thank you for participation in the discussion of my RFA. At the beginning I thought that your strong opposition was based, at least to some extent, on a misunderstanding of my position and I hoped that by clearing things up we could come to some understanding or, at least, agree to disagree. After your first reply it was clear that this was not the case. You seemed to understand my views perfectly well - but you felt so strongly that they were wrong that I couldn't be trusted. You even told a user who voted to support me that his views were "chilling" and agreed with El C that if more people held those views you would leave Wikipedia.

Nothing I said throughout the process made you change your mind and you strongly opposed my nomination till the end. Out of everyone voting that way you were probably the best informed about what my actual positions were. You did not, for example, misunderstand my position on the representation of nazi POV on Wikipedia, as I felt some people did. Nor did you, at any point, assume that I was acting in bad faith. This is all to your credit.

If you're interested you can look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Haukurth for some more recent thoughts from me and others. Thank you again and keep up the good work. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

in X Place?!!
I see you are one person that has been raising some ruckus about this. I have been on WikiVacation for a while, so just started paying attention to this. The new "User in Location" scheme makes absolutely no sense to me. Most of the places I can contribute information about are not the place I live in right now. I would be okay with having a new categorization scheme for who's where, but to do away with a way of listing oneself by places one is interested in and has information to offer about makes, I said, no sense to me. &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * wrt CfD; please! Drop me a line if you need support; I don't have much bandwidth, but would at least vote for it, and maybe try to explain why. &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 10:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rmky87#in_X_Place.3F.21.21 for another comment from me. &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank You
Guettarda, Thank you for your support re Alienus. I hesitate to do an abrupt reversion of someone's well intentioned contribution, but it seemed appropriate in this case.--Nowa 13:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for keeping an eye on my user page! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 06:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Chris Chittleborough is making some edits to Ross McKitrick - that I regard as unreasonably septical: deleting the fact that the results didn't change; adding nature forced publication; etc etc. Take a look when you have a moment. William M. Connolley 17:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC).

Keeping an eye on I.D.
I liked your edit, because "some" can imply "a minority". It certainly wouldn't be used to describe an overwhelming majority (say, 65%) - let alone a near-unanimous 90%.

Do you know what percent of scientists - either scientists in general, to include physicists, chemists, etc. or only biologists - reject ID? That would be good info for the ID article. I'm guessing that at least 90% of scientists in general reject it, and 99.8% to 99.9% of biologists. Uncle Ed 18:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Evolution
Wikipedia is not a debate forum; this applies to talk pages as well. Discussion regarding ways to improve the article are welcome, but general comments do not belong there. Thanks. Guettarda 19:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

How biased of you to remove my portion of the discussion ("Word Wide Acceptance of Evolution???"). What you did was the very thing I was claiming in my comments. Read what I wrote and tell me again you simply being editorial. The amount of debate material in this discussion is large enough already and you remove my contribution on the claim that this is not a debate forum! Get a grip of reality and see the tremendous bias this forum is displaying for the great debate of evolution and intelligent design. In the evolution article there is not one criticism in the main article but in the Intelligent Design main article you have criticsim on each point of the article, HOW BIASED! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolandtrv (talk • contribs) November 9, 2005


 * It isn't bias, it's policy. Sorry that you were offended.  Your posting did not address article content.  If you feel that the article should be changes in whatever way, please feel free to post your suggestions (new comments go at the bottom of the talk page).  In addition, you should use the user talk page rather than the user page when you talk to individuals.  Thanks.  Guettarda 20:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

reply
Yes it would, but my bot is only doing templates that should not be changed, e.g. imagine if someone changed clear, that would possibly wreck lots of articles, conversly stub templates get changed fairly frequently and specifically want those changes reflected on all instances of that template, hence they will never be subst'ed. See Template substitution. thanks  Martin   20:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Not at all
I was just kidding, too. What, you can dish it out, but you can't take it?

I think I'm on wiki-hiatus. Life sucks right now, and probably will for the next few months. Graft 21:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Linking names
Hi, I noticed that you replaced Henry Cowles' middle name after I removed it. I did that so other articles that mention him would link to it without having to type the full legal name in those articles. Apparently you see this as a problem. Can I link to the Cowles article without typing the full name? Thanks. Jeeb 02:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info and for adding the redirect. I thought there must be a better way than what I did.  Jeeb 03:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Durin, Kelly & NLT
My views on this matter are already on the RFC talk page.Geni 04:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Fortunetly (well except in a few cases) many who leave return. A few days away from wikipedia is something everyone needs from time to time. It is a mess but we have got through worse in the past.Geni 05:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It all boils down to language codes. Kelly has some legal training which well effect her language codes so she will use legal terms where others do not. The problem is that use of legal terms tends to be percived a threatening (there is also the issue of different legal systems I'm in the uk where libel laws are a pain from the POV of the defendant). My training in chemistry probably results in some lanague shifts but people tend not to find that as threatening.Geni 05:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Unsigned
Thanks for the tip about my sig on evolution, I deleted it. Also thanks for mentioning this template, I didn't even know about it. --hydnjo talk 16:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Natural selection
If you have time, can you check out Natural selection? A new user has been making extensive changes. Personally, I think these changes are fine (I think the user has a fine understanding of natural selection). Nevertheless, I think it is a good idea for someone to check it over, even if only for style issues. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * About Natural selection I agree entirely with your assessment. I don't mean to shrug off my own responsibilities as an editor, but in this matter I trust you to do a better job making the necessary edits.  About Ramallite, well, thank you.  I have to admit, I do feel uncomfortable because what I wrote would fail the NOR test were I to put it into an article, and believe it or not I really, really really want to resist using Wikipedia as my own soapbox...  Still, thank you, Slrubenstein   &#124;  &#91;&#91;User talk:Slrubenstein&#124;Talk]] 15:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

can you help
Hi, could you look at my comment here ? Might you be one of the people who could respond to my point by adding accurate information to the "gene" article? Slrubenstein  &#124;  &#91;&#91;User talk:Slrubenstein&#124;Talk]] 19:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Toning down language
rv - it's bad faith (if not vandalism) to remove content before AFd'ing an article. I'm going got ask you to tone down your language, please. You can be passionate about a topic and remain polite at the same time, it is possible. Also, revert wars are not productive. And merging articles with prior concensus isn't either. Cheers, Vizcarra
 * The only concerns you have pointed out in my talk page were the afd on bissap. And if you pay close attention it was to rename it to the English term for it. This being the English wikipedia. As for the "removal of content". That content belongs to Jamaica (drink), it was merged without prior concensus. I have explained both issues to you. And I don't know why they are still a surprise to you. --Vizcarra 04:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Since you have chosen to not tone down your remarks, I'm going to choose not to respond to them. Cheers, --Vizcarra 06:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please abstain from leaving any more messages in my talk page. They will be erased. --Vizcarra 17:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Policy frowns on disruption. Guidelines say that you should address the concerns of others. So far all you have to say with regards to your apparent abuse of AfD is to tell me that I should not call a spade a spade, and to say that you refuse to address concerns about your behaviour. It's also frowned upon to delete people's questions without answering them. Placing yourself above Wikipedia guidelines and policies will only get you into more trouble. This is a community - you need to try to function as a member of the community. You are not free to alter policy to suit your whims. The community does not exist to serve you. Policies and guidelines apply to everyone - even you! Guettarda 17:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations
Hello Guettarda! I don't know if you are a football fan. However, congratulations to T&T qualification for FIFA World Cup. - Darwinek 18:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you plan a football-related visit to Germany in 2006? Great news for me too, Poland have already qualified and the Czech Republic seems to qualify too. I am watching it now on TV. - Darwinek 19:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion
If I were you, I would remove the first sentence on the front of your profile page. It isn't very polite and puts-down a fellow Wikipedian. --Hollow Wilerding 01:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply
I've replied to your comment on my talk page at WP:AN/3RR. The summary of my position is that I read the arbcom decision as indicating that due to his past irresponsible behavior, William M Connelly is now held to a higher standard of behavior than others when it comes to reverting. I happen to agree with you that the particular thing he reverted was stupid. Nonetheless, it would have taken an extra minute for him to throw a note on the talk page saying "I reverted this because it was vandalism." Nandesuka 13:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)