User talk:HighInBC/Archive 1


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this page.

Re:
Well technically it isn't a speedy candidate. However, it is a prime redirect candidate, which I've gone and done. The album article itself is far to short to warrant branching off into individual song articles. &mdash;Xezbeth 21:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable. Until(1 == 2) 22:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If I can't login, it's not my account anymore?
That's stupid reasoning. So if I lock myself out of my car, it's not mine anymore? 67.135.49.29 18:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You could be anybody just claiming to be that guy, ranting in his name to make him look bad. Not gunna be allowed. You can tell it to e-mail you a new password. Until(1 == 2) 18:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See here. It's me.  I'm leaving.  Please leave the pages alone. 67.135.49.29 18:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ya, it is really out of my hands now. Until(1 == 2) 18:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't have been in your hands in the first place. 67.135.49.29 18:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I may have been wrong, but I had no way to know that and I was only trying to protect you from an impersonator. Until(1 == 2) 21:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was able to verify his identity through an off-wiki private message. - Crockspot 18:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * glad it is resolved.. Until(1 == 2) 20:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Prod tagging of May the Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense Be With You
I have removed your tagging of this page for deletion, as the prod tag is only for use on articles, user pages and user talk pages and not on pages in the Wikipedia namespace. If you still want it deleted, then take it to Miscellany for deletion, though I should warn you that it has been nominated before several times and there has been a lot of controversy about it recently, so be careful. Hut 8.5 14:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't there a CSD for copyright violations? That content is violating the legal rights of the original authors by not attributing them. There really is not much to debate. Do you mean if the masses vote to keep a copyright infringement you do? How does that work when you get sued, does the MF foundation go to court or all the people to voted to keep it? Until(1 == 2) 14:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Those pages were speedy deleted a few weeks ago on the grounds that they violated the GFDL, and it sparked a huge row. There clearly is not consensus to delete them on that basis, and speedy deletion is only for uncontroversial deletions. If you want it deleted, I recommend you go to Miscellany for deletion and try and get a consensus there. An administrator would have been obliged to decline your original nomination anyway, as prod tags are not for the Wikipedia namespace. Hut 8.5 15:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So if the website votes to keep a copyright infringement it is kept, understood. Not sure any courts will understand, but that is not really related to me. All I can say is that I am a little concerned that my contributions to Wikipedia may be used by Wikipedia without following the rights guaranteed to me in the GFDL. How do I know that something I post won't end up on some page without attribution to me so that this encyclopedia can have a joke page? Until(1 == 2) 15:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't want to get into an argument about the merits of the page here, as this is not the place for it. The correct place is a deletion discussion, not one user's talk page. Hut 8.5 15:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, ok. Just that if I see any of my contributions being used without following GFDL licenses, I will not be impressed. The whole point of this place is supposed to be that it gives everything to an open license, it could at least follow its own license. Until(1 == 2) 15:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Given the stink you refer to in the past regarding this page, I am starting to think that if these pages are deleted you may be given a hard time? Is that it? Until(1 == 2) 15:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no stake in the deletion of this page whatsoever. In fact I did not even contribute to the original discussion. Yet again, if you want this page deleted, then go to WP:MFD. Hut 8.5 15:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If everyone got together and decided to violate the copyrights of the contributors here then I don't see what would be accomplished by starting the same discussion again. It would seem this website has made up its mind about this. The decision it made was to violate the copyrights of its own contributors. Until(1 == 2) 15:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * After reading through that discussion, it seems that anyone who deletes these copyright infringements would be given a hard time. I am finding my self confused often about the disparity between policy and action here. Until(1 == 2) 18:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

User talkpage
I've watchlisted it... if the editor gets abusive with the talkpage I will protect it, but I don't want to do premature protection there. User Talkpage protections are really a last resort.--Isotope23 15:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I see now that the posting of that was prior to the blocking. I suppose there is no need to be punitive. Until(1 == 2) 15:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

WT:UAA
I've replied to your questions on the above page. I know it would seem easier to put my reply here but I left it there for ease of continuity :) SGGH speak! 20:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. Until(1 == 2) 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I looked through your few removals. They seem quite reasonable generally but I do wonder about "CrackHarvester" - that seems more worrisome than the others, and it was more a question of the reason given not being the best fit (*sigh*.. Twinkle again), and also no one had commented on it.  It does seem to me like that name could be considered offensive in multiple ways: it sounds like a fecal reference to me more than anything, or perhaps a sexual reference, and the illegal drug reference isn't much better.  But no worries, I'll just go ahead and block that one.  Keep up the good work: I echo what the others have said about the idea in general.  Mango juice talk 18:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems like a drug reference to me. Not sure what part of the username policy you blocked it under, I don't see any clause about "illegal" references. Seems a bit arbitrary. Perhaps it is part of the whole American war on drugs thing, I am not from the states so it all seems a bit hysterical to me. If a guy wants to harvest or even smoke crack, what does that have to do with Wikipedia? Until(1 == 2) 18:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Under the part that says "offensive usernames." Offensive usernames are disallowed, not just specific categories of names that are offensive.  In this particular case, I'd be willing to open up a wider discussion, but only if the user actually shows up and objects to the block, otherwise it's moot.  Mango juice talk 18:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I notice the users block message is a generic one that does not point out which part of the policy it is in violation of. How is the user to know what name to pick next, or for that matter what he did wrong to begin with? Until(1 == 2) 19:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's better that way. WP:U specifically warns against registering names to try to find the borderline, and in my view when someone has picked a bad name, they should be directed to the policy and asked to pick a good name.  If they can't understand why their name was bad, they can always make an unblock request to appeal it.  (And the instructions for making a general unblock request are visible to a blocked user when they try to edit.)  Mango juice talk 18:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. Until(1 == 2) 18:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Anas
Anas is an Arabic name; it is pronounced as Ānas (IPA: [aːns]). Can't read that? OK, then. The first part, An, is like the an in man; the second part, as is like the as in cast. The name is derived from another Arabic word which means entertainment or enjoyment and means someone you would enjoy sitting around. Why the "lol", though? :) — An as  talk? 15:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a lame joke, you can look in the history if you want to see it. Until(1 == 2) 16:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

My Edits
Thanks, next time I´ll make my edit summaries more informative.GiZiBoNG 15:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it was entirely my fault, I failed to scroll down and see if your edit summary was true. Until(1 == 2) 15:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Unnamed section #1
I put the cite for the change in the discussion page. It comes from the weekly sales figures reported by USA Today. "Tifferoo wanted a Bo Bice album sales update. Contrary to what you've heard (800,000-950,000), the official Nielsen SoundScan number is 688,000, or exactly what Taylor's sold as of this week." (http://blogs.usatoday.com/idolchatter/2007/06/answering-a-few.html) Other than put in the cite in the discussion page, there's doesn't seem a system to add cites for the sales figures on that page. (MarcoNYC 22:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Ok. Until(1 == 2) 22:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay meaning I should go back and make the change again or Okay you will revert the reverted page back? (MarcoNYC 22:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)). Nevermind, I quickly made the change and added a citation for the history. Thanks!  (MarcoNYC 22:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)).


 * It looks like you have done your homework, go for it. I had not seen your citation then. Until(1 == 2) 23:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey mate
I was reading you and Kyoko on Riana's talk page and looked at your monobook.css and was wondering just what does what? Could you tell me? Thank you. :) &mdash; $PЯING  rαgђ  03:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It changes the way the "You have new messages (last change)" box look. For mine it shows a rounded black box with white lettering. Until(1 == 2) 04:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

user Jayjg
In addition to stalking and reverting user Jayjg is now threatening. On my talk page. Unlike others I don't think he's god, don't find the situation humerous, and wonder if there is a procedure for dealing with those who misuse administrative privledges to censor ideas they don't care for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rktect (talk • contribs) 10:01, 2 July 2007


 * I want you to sit down and think real hard. You have come to a website, and they are telling you that you need to follow certain rules on this website. Think real hard about it. This is what you can expect from pretty much any website. I guess my advice is to just accept it or go to another website. Not much I can do to change to world for you. Until(1 == 2) 17:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Strange
That was weird! I din't actually move anything. Software glitch I suppose. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The server does not always catch edit conflicts it seems. The same thing happened to me when I undid your edit. Until(1 == 2) 15:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Re. 1 day???
I thought a while about it. This account isn't spam-only, as there were a few valid contributions before today's massive spam. That's why I've decided to block a single day. If tomorrow this user is back spamming, then an indef block is likely. Regards, Hús  ö  nd  01:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed his contributions more carefully and in fact I can only find a minor useful (?) edit. There was another edit I didn't realize it was vandalism the first time I checked. Indef blocked now. Thanks for the heads up. Regards, Hús  ö  nd  01:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Report
Ooops, sorry will be more careful.--Tigeroo 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, no worries. Until(1 == 2) 13:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed discussion #1
Removed due to ad hominem attacks, and intimidation. It can be found here: User talk:Until(1 == 2)/unwelcome. Miikka is welcome to post again without commenting on my personality or trying to intimidate me. Until(1 == 2) 16:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Note from Tones

 * Did Mikka tried to intimidate you? He blocked me even if it wasn't 3RR breaking. He had a conflict interest as Admin Luna Santin said "it seems to present a conflict of interest" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive266#Unfair_block.3F --Tones benefit 16:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted. Until(1 == 2) 16:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's do something in order to get rid of his obsession.--Tones benefit 16:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground, my goal is to clean up an article, not butt heads with this guy. Unless I am approached by him in a less rude fashion, I will limit my exposure to this person to the amount needed to work on the article. Until(1 == 2) 16:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * yes, you're right but that person is very strange, for him maybe you're just a battleground.--Tones benefit 16:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Removed own comment, perhaps not appropriate. Until(1 == 2) 17:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All right. I will keep in mind. I never imagine he had so many edits. After all the quality counts. He may have many but..--Tones benefit 17:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * About removing sourced info...The citations are provided, only in different places. Deletion of valid information without having good reasons to believe it is false is a disrespect to other fellow wikipedians and disruptive behavior. `'Miikka 17:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC) --Tones benefit 17:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi! Sorry for interrupting your conversation but I have to warn you that your interlocutor is possibly User:Bonaparte (checkuser). Alæxis¿question? 17:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ya, don't know who Tones benefit or Bonaparte is. Not really taking much from his post anyways, thanks. Until(1 == 2) 17:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To relax a bit, have some fun: Astronomer vs Amateur. `'Miikka 17:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, will look at it. I like to stay relaxed, peace. Until(1 == 2) 17:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Lenin and Staling as slurs

 * I tell you if a man calls you Lenin or Stalin in Romania that's a slur. "Să te fută Stalin!" is a slur and contains Stalin word. --Tones benefit 18:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It is great that you can tell me that, but do you have a citation for it? Until(1 == 2) 18:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't directed to you but I gave you an example: here is the source http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=sa+va+futa+Stalin many on internet are saying this.--Tones benefit 18:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Just find something that meets our definition of a reliable source and put a citation next to the claim. The citation should support that the word is used as a slur, and should also support any other information included in the entry. Until(1 == 2) 18:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Beth Nahrin
Re: revert because of cross referencing wikipedia. Thank you for explaining why Wikipedia shouldn't link to other wikipedia pages. Most of those links were actually added by another editor and I would have thought they made perfect sense.

What I had actually corrected is the speculation as statement of fact. The two rivers are not known. It is speculated and the speculation is often repeated that they are the Tigris and Euphrates. The territory of the Nahrin as reported in Pritchard the ANE and other sources as between the djadi and upper retnu. Generally ANE references take these as the Orontes and Jordan.

If you want to revert to the speculation you should provide sources that address the issue at the primary sources level. That would mostly consist of corespondence between merchants and military commands in Akkadian and Hittite. There is reference in the Egyptian campaign literature, some reference in Silvia Luraghi's ancient Hittite sentence structure, some reference in Mesopotamia 101by Marie Louise Thomas and in the Cambridge Atlas of Mesopotamia.(CAM)

Beth Nahrain (Syriac: ܒܝܬ ܢܗܪ̈ܝܢ  ; "the house/land of the rivers") is the Syriac name for Mesopotamia (a Greek-derived word which translates to "the land between the rivers"). It might refer to the Euphrates and Tigris rivers in and around the modern-day countries of Turkey, Syria, and Iraq or to the two rivers which defined the home of the [Nahrin], the [Orontes] and [Jordan]. This area was the focus of the 18th Dynasty Egyptian military campaigns against the King of [Kadesh] The Syriac name loosely describes the area of the rivers, not between like the literal Greek term; however both names refer to the same region. The name Bayn Nahrayn is also found in Arabic (Arabic: بين نهرين; "between two rivers"). Rktect 00:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I need a diff to the edit you are talking about or I cannot understand all of this. Until(1 == 2) 01:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * []
 * []

The Mitanni or Nahrain may have as their territory a region roughly the same as that of the Assyrians, but what supports that other than the name two rivers? Even the article as it was allows that its questionable. I take this as an attempt to reference the two rivers as the Tigris and Euphrates.

If you look at their cities and places where they are specifically mentioned all of them are on the Orontes and Jordan. The two rivers symbol dates long before the Mitanni and is incorporated in Literature in the form of Ruth and elsewhere

the four gods of air, earth, fire, and water include the two rivers glyph and Mitanni style costuming.

Until more information and sources are produced Their presence over as wide an area as the Assyrians should be discussed as speculation Rktect 20:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I reverted that because you added information without providing a citation, for example you claimed "This area was the focus of the 18th Dynasty Egyptian military campaigns against the King of Kadesh Kadesh", but only gave a wikipedia article as a citation. Until(1 == 2) 20:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See the discussion page for [the Battle of Kadesh]. Sometimes I place references on the discussion pages because they tend to walk if I leave them in the articles. I've had about 50 pages of references reverted in the last week, most of it pretty basic old stuff most people know by heart, Pritchard, Gardiner, Faulkner, Loprieno, Heise, Luraghi, Thompson a couple dozen others. I also keep them saved as word.docs so if you need a reference ask me Rktect 02:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure. You can go ahead and re-add it again, but perhaps with fact tags instead of citations to Wikipedia articles. Or if you know of a citation for this info you can use that instead of the fact tags. Until(1 == 2) 02:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to coordinate and cross reference agreed upon definitions and sources so as to eliminate widely accepted but disproven myths? A few examples; Ancient people thought the world was flat, sailed in sight of shore so as not to sail off the edge of the earth, science, religion, philosophy, mathematics, etc; were all invented by the Greeks, Israel is mentioned in the Mrneptah stele, The people of the Exodus walked across the Sinai despite the story says they crossed the Red Sea which is actually more plausible given it was a regular trade route at the time and the Egyptians had fortified all the wells...??? The problem I'm referring to is that for many things its easy to find well established sources which are just plain wrong. Academics recognize this but its very hard to go against the sincere beliefs of people who have been taught otherwise. Can't there be discussion and agreement on the talk pages before reverting?Rktect 15:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability in lists
You might want to peek into Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability Jeepday (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. It is good when people let you know when someone is trying to change the policy during a policy related disagreement. I guess assume Mik just forgot to let me know about it. Until(1 == 2) 13:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sure that is the case ) Jeepday (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability
I have asked for a third opinion regarding your convictions about CSD A3. Picaroon (Talk) 00:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent, I have found the crowd at WT:V very reasonable. Until(1 == 2) 00:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Re
One day on an article with little traffic is not "plenty of time". If you want to waste people's time, then nominate the thing for AfD. Otherwise please leave it alone. &mdash;Xezbeth 14:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Read the policy. Any unsourced information can be removed. You are acting in violation of the WP:V policy by returning that information. Please stop now. Until(1 == 2) 14:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not troll my talk page with warning templates. Stop being rude. &mdash;Xezbeth 14:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am asking you to explain why you are reverting me against policy. Those warnings are valid as you keep doing the same policy violations. Don't call me a troll. Until(1 == 2) 14:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not know you were such an experienced user and already knew the content of those warnings. I have removed the warnings from your page. Until(1 == 2) 15:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Timing
Just a suggestion, you might want to read There is no deadline. I understand you are motivated and you are being bold. In Unreferenced articles am working articles that have had unreferenced on them for a year or more, and still people are resistive to my deleting content even after I tried and failed to verify it. It is polite to give several days warning before deleting content. I have learned that when cleaning house slower is less stressful and better received. Remember you are working in a community of volunteers, many of whom have contributed similar effort to add content as you are using to remove it. I know you are adding references and you may actually find your work easier be giving other editors a chance to reference their work from resources they have easily available that you don't. The policy may support your arguments but, your are working in a community, try and get the community to support your arguments as well. Jeepday (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am making every effort to work with the community. Thanks for the advice. Until(1 == 2) 01:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced data
Sourcing is new to wikipedia. Articles written for wikipedia in the early years were typically not sourced. There remain many thousands of excellent article in wikipedia from those years that remain to be properly sourced. Do not delete any data from wikipedia that you believe to be both true and not harmful regardless of whether or not it is sourced. Sourcing is an improvement and only a requrement if someone honestly believes it is either false or harmful (per WP:BLP or WP:LIBEL for example). The reqirement is that it is capable of being sourced. It only fails this requirement if people actually look online and in libraries for a source and can't find one. It does not fail this requirement just because a question on a talk page goes unanswered. WAS 4.250 12:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Dam. I read all those policies and I am acting within their spirit and letter. How is moving something to the talk page until it meets inclusion standards wrong? The info is still available to the editors to work on, but shielded from the reader until confirmed. Moving something to the talk page simply gives it the editorial attention it needs instead of misinforming the readership. You say "The reqirement is that it is capable of being sourced(sic)", where is that written? I read all the policies and I must have missed that, please point me to it. Until(1 == 2) 13:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Verifiability says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability". Note that it does not say "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is an inline citation to a reliable published source." Citing is how we demonstate verifiability when a claim is challenged. Verifiability then says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the fact template, or tag the article by adding Not verified or Unreferenced. Leave an invisible HTML comment, a note on the talk page, or an edit summary explaining what you have done. Be careful not to go too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people." Clearly, we are not supposed to go around deleting every uncited claim. Clearly, how we deal with uncited claims is a matter of editorial judgement. There is no rule to be used blindly on every uncited claim. But editorial judgements will vary. So when you feel that some list items should be moved to the talk page then maybe they should. When someone else disagrees then maybe they shouldn't. It is all a matter of editorial judgement. See WP:IAR for our most important rule. If it make wikipedia better then it is ok to do. WAS 4.250 14:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It says move it to the talk page, that is what I did. Then I went through them all and found citations for about a third of them, then I posted on the talk page telling others the the uncited ones are available. That is a for cry from deleting every uncited claim. The policy makes it very clear that anyone can challenge a fact and the the person returning it carries the burden of verifiability. I am thinking that the policy needs to be changed to match consensus, I will draft a policy change proposal. I will follow the rules, I have been following the rules, the rules do not match consensus, this needs to be fixed or others will be "bitten" for following the rules. Until(1 == 2) 15:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. WAS 4.250 15:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability, I have suggested additions to reflect the communities opinions on this matter. Until(1 == 2) 16:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You say "Note that it does not say "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is an inline citation to a reliable published source."", but it says ""Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."


 * So it pretty much does say to be verifiable there needs to be a reliable source in the article that can be found by any editor. It does not need to be a footnote, that is a stylistic issue, but something is needed. Until(1 == 2) 15:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The word "verifiable" was specifically chosen over the word "cited". Liquid water is verifiably wet. We want verifiable by a reliable published source. "Liquid water is wet" is verifiable by a reliable published source by anyone who knows how to use a library or google. Adding a cite makes it cited and more easily verifiable by a reliable published source, but adding the cite does not change it from not being verifiable to being verifiable. In fact it can be cited and not be verifiable by a reliable published source if the cited source does not back the claim cited. Cite. Verifiable by a reliable published source. Different. Not the same. Get it? And you are not a jerk. Everyone makes mistakes. WAS 4.250 15:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So when it says "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" it means that any reader could go to Google or the library and look it up? I took it as meaning a reliable source was made available to check. Once again this is an ambiguity that did not occur to me, and if that is really what it means then that is a whole different story. It needs to be more clear, as I still am unsure if that is really what it means. Until(1 == 2) 15:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Bite
I see from your last edit to your user page Diff that you are feeling bitten. We all try to apply WP:BITE as with anything sometimes we do better then others. If you are looking for a less stressful project take a look at Active Wiki Fixup Projects there is always something going on there. Jeepday (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * May I ask which of the tasks on that list can be dealt with in a manner consistent with policy that will not result in an upset community? I am trying to tread lightly now as people are accusing me of bad faith. Until(1 == 2) 16:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose using twinkle to revert blatant vandalism would be safe. Until(1 == 2) 15:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Trifecta
Hi. I'm sorry that your editing experience here has been harsher than it should have been. Please don't be too discouraged. It seems you have run into people here that have been less than friendly. Well it happens. Some people are best ignored or stayed away from if you are the sensitive type. Perhaps what you need to read is not our policies but an explanation for how the policies work together and an overall sense of the spirit or justification of them. Trifecta is exactly that. The idea is that if you always keep two things in mind you don't need to know the rest. Those two things are:
 * 1) this is an encyclopedia
 * 2) get along with people. WAS 4.250 15:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I will grow a thicker skin. I am having trouble telling the difference between people that are just being mean, and people that are just frustrated. I am trying to balance taking other people's concerns seriously and protecting myself from name calling and accusations of bad faith. I will look through that page you sent me. Until(1 == 2) 15:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Gee, after looking through that, it just links to the policies I have already read. They seem to support my position. I have learned from this however that policies are descriptive, not prescriptive. This helps. Until(1 == 2) 15:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That is mostly true. But some aspects of WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV are prescriptive in the sense that if people don't follow them we get rid of the people or their behavior instead of change the rules. Anything that threatens to destroy wikipedia as a community or as an encyclopedia is ruthlessly crushed regardless of what the rules say. Kinda like "The constitution is not a suicide pact." Anything that could fork the project or result in a lawsuit that people would not donate money to fight are examples. Just talking about maybe having ads on wikipedia created a spanish language wikipedia fork. And OTRS responds to threats of lawsuits. WAS 4.250 16:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see, is there a list of policies that consensus cannot override? How do I tell the difference between the two? I would think WP:V would be one of them, it is how we enforce NPOV. Until(1 == 2) 16:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well. So far there is no such list. The community is making all this up as we go along. Maybe you would like to try your hand at writing such a list. Perhaps in essay style maybe? An example of how this works is a couple of years ago the idea was "all human knowledge" in wiki form free of cost and using a copy-left copyright licence (free as in freedom). Then a few things happened. Someone added information to wikipedia that violated Jimbo Wales' right to privacy (it had to do with his very young daughter); a very public case of vandalism of an article on a living person and Daniel Brandt's struggle with our article on him. Daniel was being told we could print anything we wanted on him and he had no say. He said something like "articles on living people should be sensitive" to their privacy rights and to the harm they can cause. I immediately thought that was both true and important so I started the WP:BLP policy proposal and SlimVirgin filled it out and others helped then we agreed it should be a guideline then Jimbo asked for it to become policy so it became policy. "Do no harm" in the case of claims about living persons is now an important rule of thumb. A couple years ago it was not. We are growing and evolving at a breakneck speed. WAS 4.250 17:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I hope my fresh perspective helps the community grow pasts its disparity between policy and action. I for one work very well in an environment where the rules are clear. If the rules are so mailable, then why am I yelled at even when I am in their bounds? If my end goal is to produce a good encyclopedia and work within the rules then should I not be just left in peace? Shouldn't those who object to my policy based decisions base their objections in policy? Is it really appropriate for me to be criticized for following the rules under the justification of the "Do what you think is best" policy(WP:IAR)? Am I being criticized under a different policy(WP:IAR is the only one I can think of that applies)? Until(1 == 2) 17:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We have a lot of people here like you who do well in situations with clear rules. Perhaps you would do well to find activities at wikipedia that do require less editorial judgement. Deleting content others added is not one of those activities. Policy changing is not one of those activities. You got yelled at for no good reason. Let it go. drop it and move on. learn to stay away from people who act like that. work on various articles and on most you will not be bothered, so work on those and don't work on ones where you are yelled at. WAS 4.250 19:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced
I made a post to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability that you might be interested in. Jeepday (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability Debate
I'm not sure the best way to put this, but being a Quaker and believing in plain speaking, I'm just going to put it bluntly. Please don't take it as an implicit insult.

When you make a point repeatedly and it doesn't seem to penetrate, it isn't necessarily (or even usually) because people aren't listening, or are disregarding it for their own reasons; they may well have listened, evaluated, and not agree. They often explain this. Repeating your point again and again is usually fruitless. This is not to say that I disagree with it (which is not to say that I agree with it either). Specifically, I'm referring to the 'move unsourced content to talk page' point. SamBC 14:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No offense taken, speaking plainly is very productive if all parties involved can handle it. It is right in the policy: WP:V "If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page."


 * This is not my point, but agreed upon consensus in a policy. I have been made to feel that my opinion is unwelcome in this matter, but I only offer it because the matter directly effects my editing practices. I would love nothing more than to be left alone to follow policy. Until(1 == 2) 14:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps instead of actually working on content, or participating in policy related debates I should just stick to TWINKLE'n? I have been made to feel like a jerk, but I have not done anything out of line, I have only asked that people explain themselves when they tell me what to do.


 * I have been a reader of Wikipedia for a long time, and I created an account because I kept finding the word "poop" in articles and I wanted to revert vandalism. After more reading I found that vandalism is just one problem, and that the more subtle problem is that it is littered with inaccurate and dubious facts, so I read the verifiability policy and acted on it. And for my effort I have been accused of bad faith about a dozen times by mostly long term users. I basically have been told to be quiet about the issue and do what the grown ups tell me to do, despite an extensive set of policies that do not support this. Despite claims of being a "consensus" driven community, I am being asked to follow rules that people cannot even come to agreement on because "I am new", and "They have experience". With experience should come the ability to explain yourself. Frankly I feel bitten. Until(1 == 2) 14:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You have my sympathy. There's a certain amount of newby-biting that goes on regardless of guidelines against it. I've seen a reasonable amount of it myself. SamBC 17:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will not let it get me down. I will just try to work in other areas. I will also look into things like the mediation cabal, so next time there is a disagreement of this scale there can be a more structured debate about it. Until(1 == 2) 18:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed discussion #2
Removed due to repeat ad hominem attacks and unwillingness to discuss anything other than cease commenting on me as a person. It can be found here: User talk:Until(1 == 2)/unwelcome. Until(1 == 2) 17:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to suspend disbelief in your case, but "unwillingness to discuss anything other than me as a person" is a pure lie. Kappa 17:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a poor choice of words, I have rephrased my explanation. Until(1 == 2) 19:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Kappa, I've been following this discussion between you and Until, and while I can see the traces of valid criticism in your comments, they do smack of ad hominem, and the last remark before it was moved is very reminiscent of the chewbacca defence. I would suggest that you take maybe 24 hours break, and if you still want to have this discussion with Until after that, try to do it more calmly. Both of you starting the discussion again and discarding emotive arguments may help. SamBC 18:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

1 equals 2 when...
...when the universe turns into a black hole, just before the next Big Bang. Baseball Bugs 02:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I will just sit in a nice little loop until then. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  02:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Good plan. :) Baseball Bugs 02:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Blues musicians lists
I have now added references to each list as well. I am the person who created each corresponding category also. I made the lists because many artists simply have no articles yet on Wikipedia, and so I am using the lists to appear with the categories in order to give more comprehensive coverage. I do hope all this deletion talk will die down now that references have been provided. (Mind meal 04:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC))


 * I responded on the article's talk page. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  18:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the speedy delete! j   talk   18:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  18:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Admin?
Ha! I was considering questioning your actions at UAA, since you're not an admin, but then I saw you speedy delete my image. I guess you are one! :) I didn't know that. :) -- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Which actions concerned you? I am still interested in any valid criticism. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  19:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Just concerning some of the usernames you removed that would normally be decided on by an admin. Since you are an admin, I know have no concern, since it's your descision. Some names can be removed by normal users, but some need to be handled by admins. -- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say the distinction would be a firm understanding in policy, not an admin bit. My understanding is that anyone can challenge a name from UAA, and that it can be sent to RFCN if there is still disagreement. It does tend to be done mainly by admins though in practice. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  19:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sock tagging
Here are some other useful tags, courtesy admin Pathoschild: You can type "sock" instead of "sockpuppet" to save time. IPsock (with the name of the puppeteer following a pipe) is useful for tagging the userpage of IPs used by sockpuppets. Cheers, Flyguy649 talk contribs 14:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  14:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Double vandalism
He is a clever vandal: see this and this. He is a regular vandal in FR:wp. I just had to block about 12 IP's in WP:fr over less than 30 minutes time, plus a fr:ScolasMario of course. We have a special page dedicated to the fellow. Bradipus 23:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, clever fellow, removed what he wanted removed, then placed blatant vandalism in the hopes that only that will be reverted. Thanks for catching that. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  23:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you think this user: User:Mario scolas is the same? I assumed User:ScolasMario was an impersonator of this user, now I am not so sure. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  23:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Self ref sources
My actual focus here is Wikipedia articles on Wikipedia. For example, it's notable in Wikipedia history that certain things happened within the community. New policies were agreed, userboxes were popularized then purged, mediation and enforced mediation was introduced, RfA success rates declined, and so on. The primary and reliable source for these is permalinks on Wikipedia project pages. I don't know how one can write a History of Wikipedia without citing these pages at some point. I feel that a debate such as the deletion of Ezperanza, the rejection of WP:ATTRIBUTION, RfA success rates, article stats, and so on, are all self-pub, but all reliable. I'd like to recheck my own views, with how others categorize this sort of thing, within current WP:RS wording? Anyhow, that's the issue. FT2 (Talk 01:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * When working on articles about Wikipedia itself, it is more important to avoid self references. Stick to what independent sources have said about the incident, and if such sources do not exist, ask yourself is this information really encyclopedic if I cannot find an independent source. Using Wikipedia as a source for an article about itself defeats the purpose of getting outside verification. Such self-referential articles need to be extra careful about NPOV. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  01:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

query
My apologies if this seems kind of strange, but I am curious as to whether or not you had an RFA. I checked the old discussions, and I couldn't find an RFA for you, which is quite strange as you are an administrator. To be completely honest, the reason I looked is that you are a very new account and it seemed very strange to me that you were given admin status in less than two months. If you didn't have an RFA, I'm really curious as to why. Natalie 15:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See the user rights log. I did have an RfA, years ago. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  15:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. I did look in the rename log but didn't find you for some reason. Must have mistyped. Thanks for satisfying my curiousity. Natalie 15:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back
Welcome back. :) --- A. L. M. 16:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC) I hope you will be more careful this time. -- A. L. M. 16:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it took a whole month before I got welcomed to Wikipedia this time. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  16:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are not as active in this month as you usually used to be. anyway... I will try to feel yourself new too. --- A. L. M. 16:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not think you know me. If anything I am more active now than I have been in many months. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  16:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not ask me to prove it please. --- A. L. M. 16:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

ursul
See User talk:Ursul pacalit de vulpe `'Míkka 16:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, responded there. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  17:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hogwash
Meh, enough hogwash. On behalf of the vast majority of Wikipedians who are happy to trust the 'crats that we said we trusted when we gave them the 'crat powers, a big fat "meh" to all the hogwash. You're a useful Wikipedian and admin. Until you protect the wrong version. Then, I reserve the right to call you all the names under the sun, assume bad faith and go shoot some cuddly lemmings. But in the meantime, meh to the hogwash. (I might have said that already). Come back soon. We need you. And meh. --Dweller 19:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto. --Kbdank71 20:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to be put on any list of people who will vouch for you. Glad you're here. Dekimasu よ! 15:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Mail
You've got mail. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Boink
You have more mail. &mdash; Rlest  (formerly Qst) 20:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Image license question
On RC patrol, I came across this edit with an edit summary, "editor contacted me via e-mail to rescind his free licenses and invoke copyright". I didn't think that was allowed, is it? Flyguy649 talk contribs 20:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, noticed the wikibreak sign. I'll take this elsewhere. Flyguy649 talk contribs 21:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, you cannot rescind GFDL. Once you release it, it is irrevocable. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  17:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

E-mail
You have e-mail. :) -- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 20:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hope you like email, as I've just added one to your inbox. :) Pinball22 15:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.