User talk:Inkypaws/Archive1

Welcome to Wikipedia
Welcome to Wikipedia, User:Inkypaws. You have a cute Username. :-) Are you going to expand Mesangial cell ? Please go ahead and have fun with it. If biomedical stuffs interest you, you may want to visit WikiProject Clinical medicine. Have FUN !  :-D -- PFHLai 05:10, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)

I thought carefully about what kind of student would post it. I hesitated between licensed practical nurse and nursing assistant or someone in whatever they call vocational high school health care track these days. Honestly, I thought the question too naive and elementary for a pharmacy student. My opinion only and I hope you're not an LPN. Come join us at clinical medicine if you want to work on medical articles. Alteripse 00:42, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

MilkMan_Cuatro
Thanks for the heads up! FreplySpang (talk) 04:57, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing the abuse on one of the milkpuppets' pages earlier today. I've mostly been ignoring him today, because he's just looking for attention. FreplySpang (talk) 01:20, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

50 Cent
Do you know how to report those guys to someone with banning power? Staxringold 09:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Jealous
It's become sort of like a second nature to me. I'll only be getting faster after tomorrow when I get admin (quick reverts will be nice), but don't worry - I'll save some for you :). Nufy8 00:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your sharp eye!
Hi there! Thanks for revisiting the AfD page and catching my mistake. Some articles of interest to you I suppose?
 * Votes for deletion/Liz shaw
 * Liz Shaw (disambiguation)
 * Liz Shaw (New Zealand)

I also checked the edits of Nandesuka - over 2000 edits according to WP:KT! Let me know if anything else comes up again. :-) --HappyCamper 02:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Not to be insulting, but
If I had banning power you'd be banned. Just a comment. Duesel 00:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You are being insulting, but I suspect you're also mistaken :D Why do you want to "ban" me? The only things I've done that affected you were removing the "DON'T DELETE THE SHIT" vandalism on both your user page and talk page. Meelar and I both fixed it at roughly the same time. Have a look at the page history:


 * 1) (cur) (last) 18:56, 5 September 2005 Meelar <- Meelar, editing at the same time, also removes said messages, and adds a Welcome note 2 minutes after me.
 * 2) (cur) (last) 18:54, 5 September 2005 Inkypaws (blank abuse)<-I removed the abusive messages 2 minutes after they were published.
 * 3) (cur) (last) 18:52, 5 September 2005 68.66.95.135 (FUCK YOU...)<- This was the vandal.


 * So to clarify - I didn't do it. Please let me know if I've offended you in some other way.--inks 02:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh. Sorry. Hmmmmm. I suck don't I? I didn't see the user'e edit of that message. Sry. Duesel 20:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Notice
hey buddy dont you patronize me. and don't ever revert changes i make to my own user page. this behaviour will see you banned.--130.85.251.124 05:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As you can see, your user page, 130.85.251.124, has no edits. If you are also User:69.243.97.35, make changes to that page using that IP address, or register an account. Edit: See also my comments on User_talk:130.85.251.124--inks 05:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I am growing very impatient with your continued vandalism on User:69.243.97.35. Unfortunately, I won't have physical access to the 69.243.97.35 machine until this weekend, at which time your vandalism will be reverted. I will continue to revert your vandalism using this IP address until I can access the 69.243.97.35 machine. If you vandalise the revert that I make from 69.243.97.35 this weekend, I will aggressively seek a ban against you and report your behaviour. There is a disclaimer at the bottom of every User: page that states it is the responsibility of the person with the IP address to apply for an account if they feel statements against them are directed at the wrong person. Essentially, wikipedia implies everyone has "free reign" to edit user:ip pages. Therefore, it is not your job to "police" user:69.243.97.35, make the determination of whether or not I am 69.243.97.35, or assume that people are posing as "69.243.97.35" on user:69.243.97.35. It is my responsibility to get an account. I made the account p00p00 but this unfortunately had editing privileges revoked. so i gave up on getting accounts. To reiterate, please save your ideas of what proper wikipedia content is, what appropriate content is, what is tasteful/tasteless content, to (a) your own user:page, (b) articles, (c) your own website, but for heaven's sake leave my user: page alone. I hope you can understand my points and cooperate with my implied right to my own user: page. I don't want to pursue further action. --Unsigned note by User:130.85.251.124
 * So User:69.243.97.35, User:130.85.251.124, and User:P00p00 are all you? Please accept my apologies - I'm sure you'll understand that I was just on RC Patrol, and when I saw User:130.85.251.124 adding a large block of abusive text about "poo" to the Userpage for User:69.243.97.35, it looked very much like vandalism to me, and I reverted it. However, if you think my behaviour deserves a ban, I encourage you to seek one without delay, instead of making repetitive threats to do so - I reverted the changes because I don't think a large chunk of text about "poo" is entirely appropriate on a User:ip page, and I think most people here might agree with me. It would be great if you would register a new account if your old one is still banned (although I don't think it is), and if you make constructive edits in the future I can't see a problem in retaining editing priviledges.--inks 22:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Terra-rent
His user page has been deleted; if he continues to spam articles with his advertisements, he will be blocked, but it looks like he's stopped (for now). Nufy8 00:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

From George W. Bush talk page
You wrote:


 * The electoral college system is designed so that a candidate with a minority of the popular vote can gain a majority of the electoral college vote. It's not a bug, it's a feature, and it's been around for some time. Why the sudden fuss? It's almost as if some people didn't know about it before the election :)--inks 23:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. It has been awhile since I have heard a reasoned argument/statement around here, and yours made me want to stand up and clap. I am not sure Bush is the best president ever, but the system has been working great for 200 years. Does it really need changed? And like you say, "Why the sudden fuss?" Cheers. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  14:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

My RfA
inks-- I appreciate your support on my RfA. It doesn't look so good right now, but that's okay. These are the times that try men's souls. I guess I'll live to edit another day. Thanks anyway. Cheers. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  16:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Reverting a vandal
Cool, my first userpage vandal. Heh thanks for the revert :) --Sherool 07:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Inks
This is the first time I've even noticed that I was vandalized. Looking back though, it appears I've been vandalized thrice. Probably because I hate vanity pages. Citizen Premier 15:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Greetings and Thanks
Hello. Thanks for your messages and reminders regarding editing. I'll try my best not to forget them! Shervink 00:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)shervink

Measurements for NPOV Conditions
Inks,

Many thanks for the words of support re. measuring the perceived 'slant' of admins. Given Raul654's rant on the Wiki complaint page, there is now little to no doubt as to not only what the actual slant is at Wiki central, but who's behind it.

Moreover, given Jimmy Wales background in Bomis -- effectively a porno kiosk, and a predecessor to Wikipedia -- this pretty much solidifies my growing sense that Wiki-x is pretty much "lib-think porno." As for NPOV...? Arrogant nonsense. There's no way that a 24-to-3 ratio of liberals to conservatives is going to arrive at the truth...particularly not in a country that voted 51% Republican in the last presidential election. In any case, there is clearly no metric/measurement being applied to ensure an NPOV-friendly environment at Wiki (Raul654's comments being highly germane).

So if you want to bail on this now hot topic, it truly is all right with me. My goal was to ascertain as to whether or not a bias existed, and that it is now fairly clear beyond any doubt.

But...if you're game...I can at least throw out a few ideas on what the admin profile 'bot' might try to discern. Off of the top of my head, here's a few ideas (scoped to U.S.-only at first to get grounded):


 * Basics: "Have you ever voted in the presidential election for a Republican?...Democrat?...Would you consider voting for the opposite party?"


 * The head of Wikinews has publicly admitted to a strongly left-of-center personal political philosophy (reference: ). Do you share his philosophy (yes/no) or general disdain for the political right (yes/no)?   (opposite questions should be asked of those who are Right)


 * In the U.S. political spectrum, do you consider yourself to be Far Left, Left, Moderate, Right, or Far Right?


 * Do you attend church: Never (0 times per year), Almost Never (less than 3 times per year), ((Rarely (3-10 times per year), Infrequently (about once per month), Regularly (2-3 times per month), or Often (weekly or more )?

--66.69.219.9 03:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you primarily label yourself as being secular...spiritual...religious...skeptic...atheist...agnostic or other (specify)?
 * Hmmmmmmm. Not bad, but I would probably attempt an international-friendly questionairre immediately.  I think it's safe to say that editing goes on 24/7 around here, so it's important to survey all geographical locations. If non-US edits balance out US edits, then a US only survey is useless. We can find this out by weighting the responses per number of edits per unit time as a measure of activity. And to keep it very simple. Purely self rating with regards to left/right and liberal/authoritarian. I think the findings could be very interesting to discuss.....but I caution that they may not prove what you are certain of. We might well find that combined editing results in a centrist balance of admins (maybe). Comments? (anyone else reading this feel free to jump in anywhere).--inks T  05:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Excellent point re. the libertarian/authoritarian dimension; I should have remembered that. I would rank myself as both far right and highly libertarian...which some would read as a conflict, but which I am quite comfortable with. BTW, I am not out to prove anything; the data should speak for themselves. Having said that, I'm well aware what the tendencies are within the U.S. (and now Wikipedia), and do expect that the data will tell us what is now already generally known.

The religious dimension is intended to assess another aspect of Wiki that I haven't gotten into, and that is that it appears to be highly "skeptic" oriented (translation: atheistic), and thus pushes back (hard) on anything that is 'edgy' with respect to new spiritual developments. I note that Wiki founder Jimmy Wales is an Ayn Rand fan; that's highly commendable on an anti-entrenched-government basis, but he also embraces what he refers to as her "objectivism" (one translation: atheism). I would, however, soften my questioning re. church attendance and add "soulful meditation" as an alternative. It will need adjustments to the associated church-frequency timeframes, but the concept is similar and quite compatible with spirituality measurement.

Overall, my point is that if Wiki is very left, and very atheistic, this should be made public information, as there is otherwise a canard of "NPOV" which is effectively being sold as snake oil to its perhaps erstwhile believers.

I like your suggestion of a press release very much. It would be interesting if we could get Wiki co-founder (?) Larry Sanger to comment, particularly given his deep perspective.

I am concerned that an international survey is too much to bite into -- and interpret -- in one fell swoop. Would suggest a two-stage survey, with the U.S. going first, and International second. I'm sure we'd learn things from the first survey that could be applied to the second.

Good dialogue...more to come, I'm sure. --66.69.219.9 13:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Note that Rangerdude has now weighed in on this subject as well (see complaint page). Please invite him to this discussion, if you agree -- I've found him to be very level-headed. Thanks. --66.69.219.9 13:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Re: Press Release - A centrist outcome would probably motivate the Wikimedia Foundation to release it...an outcome showing significant bias in either direction..er..might be a bit more difficult :) Re: International vs USA...I actually think doing a US only survery is more work, not less. We'd have to either figure out which Admins are American and just invite them, or post a notice to all, with a caveat to disregard if not American. However, if its done in one go, and just have each respondent indicate nationality, we then have less data collection, and we don't bother the admins twice. The output will be small by most standards, and as long as each response has a nationality indication, we can sort it out ourselves. Re: Religion....do you feel strongly that what religion is more important than whether or not they are religious? Handling a mess of data with N=50 different religions is a pain, but if it's reduced to a numerical scale with 0 being Atheist and 10 being very religious, that makes it easy.

Summary:
 * Data Collection (numerical scale 0 to X) - Left/Right, Lib./Auth., Religious/Not Religious
 * Indicate nationality you identify with
 * Questions are not compulsory (feel free to decline to answer a question)
 * All individually indentifying data discarded

--inks T 02:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting that vandalism to my user page. I appreciate it! --Canderson7 02:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Vince F. Postell, PhD and NN-bio
Have you read the ongoing discussion about the interpretation of CSD A7 (non-notable bios)? After CSD A7 was passed, there still is a debate about what is notability. Like yourself, some users would want to delete Postell's article immediately. But others would not, and would only do so if is is absolutely proven that there is absolutely no remotely plausible assertion of notability. This second group of people would prefer for it to remain on AFD until someone could verify with clear cut evidence whether or not it should remain or should be cleaned up. Do you really know without a shadow of a doubt if Vince Postell has contributed significant research to the academic community?

Therefore to be on the safe side, and until further notice, I'll remove any &#123;{nn-bio}} tag on an article that is already on AFD, but the discussion currently doe not have consensus to Speedy Delete. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Schools
Hi Inky,

Did you read my exchange with Ryan Norton above your vote at Nokomoris High? I don't blame you for ignoring blocks of text :), but our argument directly address your point regarding why some WPians have a reasonable argument that schools are inherently notable, like towns are, but unlike people. I don't really care about schools, but it is becoming a pet-peeve of mine when people make what are (in my view) over-simplications like "schools are like people" or "schools are boxes," etc.  Rather than clogging your inbox with a rehash, I just thought I'd refer you to the earlier exchange.  If you'd like to discuss the issue further, I'm always talkative. :)  Thanks, Xoloz 13:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on my RfA!
Thanks for your support of my adminship!! I was surprised at the turnout and support I got! If you ever have any issues with any of my actions, please notify me on my talk page! Thanks again! Thanks also for the comments on AfD which help make it a better place, and double thanks for trying to keep the school debates civil! Ryan Norton T 04:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Rabbits and crystals
If you put your expensive carved Swarovski crystal into a cage with a real live rabbit, be aware that he might chew on it...

or he might piss on it. Neither is likely to be very good for it. DS 23:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Light Christian Academy AfD
I've brought up the AfD for Light Christian Academy at Tambayan Philippines (the Filipino noticeboard). At least one of them should comment on the AfD entry within the next day or two. --Idont Havaname 23:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

thanks, sorry
uh sorry for wasting your time by forgetting to login to edit my user page. I realise it ends up wasting the time of RC patrollers like yourself (and thanks for the job you are doing). Drink + WP = bad combo heh heh --afterword 00:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * oh gosh thanks for answering stuff at WP:RD. I love that place. Love it. And never ask people to do my homework for me. --afterword 00:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Signature
As you might have noticed, you need to fix your sig! You forgot the slash on the /sup! I just came from Wikipedia talk:Deletion reform/Proposals/Uncontested deletions, and as you can see, it's turned into a bit of a mess as a result. --InShaneee 03:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Science collaboration of the week
You voted for Human genome to be improved while it was listed on WP:IDRIVE. This article is now nominated on Science collaboration of the week. Please consider supporting it with your vote. --Fenice 13:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)