User talk:Kalsermar/archive

Welcome
Hey there, . Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian and decide to stay! Here are a few good links for newcomers (or "oldcomers" for reference):

By the way, you should sign and date your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. Three tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Great, just what we need around this place... more people whose names can spell "Ram Lakers". Dumb Lakers. :) Cheers. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  19:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Recent Deaths
Your arguments weren't bad at all, and you'd make an eloquent spokesperson for your view if the matter came to a vote. One thing I love about Wikipedia is that it defaults in favor of the inclusion of information, so while I would expect our positions to be split 50/50 in support, this would normally result in their being listed. Long before my time, this debate was had; besides my own views, another reason I oppose changing is the difficulty of revising the archives.

If it means anything, I do support the death penalty, though the way it is applied in Texas and Virginia scares me. I also support criminology, and think the dispassionate analysis of criminals is a useful social science; hence, I see their being cataloged at WP as a positive good. Best wishes, Xoloz 22:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I enjoy the debate and respect everyone's views on the issue. Revising the archives would be problematic, I agree.--Kalsermar 16:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

DC streets
An AfD that you recently particpated in has been recycled. Please see Articles for deletion/List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C. (second nomination). - brenneman (t) (c)  05:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Aaron Burr
Thank you! I suspect some yahoos are going to add it back in, but we can take turns reverting... Rklawton 18:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Your turn? Rklawton 16:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I will keep an eye on the article but I am not always in a position to act quickly I'm afraid.--Kalsermar 19:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Steelbeard1 hasn't been able to address the issues discussed in the talk pages. He has request a "truce," but his version of a truce is to leave the edits his way.  Rklawton 20:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not going to get involved in an edit war right now but I will revert it later or tomorrow probably. If he persists I may request comments on this and related issues. I will put up a message on his talk page as well.--Kalsermar 21:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hamilton-Burr duel
The Cheney/Burr shooting match is heating up again in the duel article. You took an interest last time, so I thought I might draw this to your attention. Rklawton 20:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the heads up on this, I'll check it out.--Kalsermar 00:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Appreciation
Thank you very much. I think we have very similar views, as I was just looking at some other comments you made on the olympic conventions page. Medalstats and Them medals seem to be not only expressing their views, but implimenting them as well, which is rude and rather sad. As long as we continue to bash our opponents outrageous views, I think we can draw in enough supporters to make for a "pro us" resolution of these debates. Keep up the good editing! -- Jared  [T]/[+ ] 23:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
I would like to again bring to your attention the comment you left on the Olympic conventions page. The three users: Medalstats, Them Medals, and Wintermedal, look quite suspicious of being the same person. Look at the user contribs of each one and note that each one is used on a specific date; Medalstats stops at the 24th, Them medals picks up on the 25th, and Winter medal is on the 26th. Look eerie to you too? If you're an admin, I suggest doing somjething about this, as I am not one myself. (I'd do it in a heartbeat.) Thanks. P.S. Notify me if you do anything. -- Jared  [T]/[+ ] 20:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you would do that. I'll see if I can find some way to report it and how bout you look for some evidence? -- Jared  [T]/[+ ] 20:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, here's the template I should add to the user names: . I will add it to all three of them if you think we have enough evidence. Thanks for the help. -- Jared   [T]/[+ ] 20:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok I started adding them to the talk and main user pages. the link to where the evidence is to go is posted on the template. -- Jared  [T]/[+ ] 21:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to look for an admin to address this to. So these users will be taken care of fast. -- Jared  [T]/[+ ] 21:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's quite alright. Thanks for your help. I appreciate it. -- Jared  [T]/[+ ] 22:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

More evidence
Them medals: 03:55, February 25, 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Total Olympics medal count (support for medal count scores)

Wintermedal: 16:48, February 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Olympic conventions/topics (support for medal count scores)

Note the exact same edit summary... Something tells me there was someone before it, too, and I'll try to find out who it was.

Re: Antics
Thanks for the comment. That was a nice thing to say. Yeah, I've been trying to get rid of some of those "red links" too. TYhere's just so many you can do without getting bored, though. Haha. Anyway, I looked at your comment and I've decided that I will scratch the whole thing. Your logic is right and I want that page to turn out well. P.S. Yeah I contacted an admin who then blocked him. He was being very bothersome. haha, -- Jared  [T]/[+ ] 01:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Urgent!
Kal, please go to this page ASAP, as the Olympic conventions pages have been nominated for deletion! I trust that you like them a lot and from your edits, you are not willing to lose all of the work you put in. I urge you to vote "Keep", as 3 weeks of work are about to go down the drain! Thanks. (and tell other active contributors.) -- Jared  [T]/[+ ] 20:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Olympic conventions debate
Hi all! The debate on Olympic conventions has been moved and is now under the auspices of WikiProject Sports Olympics/Olympic conventions. We are now trying to decide what to do with all of the data that has been collected and start some sort of "governance". If you'd like to take part in this discussion, feel free to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports_Olympics#Ground_rules (the WikiProject talk page). We would appreciate your help! -- J @  red  [T]/[+ ] 20:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: AfD
Hi Kalsermar. Thanks for alerting me. I too saw that on his user page and figured it would only be a matter of time before he made a page. Anyway, I voted delete (obviously). So did you hear anything about the sockpuppets of his? I just went to WP:CHECK and looked in the archives and I didn't see anything about the heading I added for medalstats. That's weird that its gone. Oh well. He hasn't edited on any of the others recently, so whatever. Thanks, again. → &ensp; J @  red &ensp; talk  +  ubx &ensp; 20:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I guess I didn't see that. Well it doesn't matter anymore becuase he's not editing with those. → &ensp; J  @  red &ensp; talk  +  ubx &ensp; 20:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Astronomical names
&mdash;  Hurricane Dev  o  n  @ 20:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) That Messier 60 thing was an acident.
 * 2) That galaxy was named the Fried Egg Galaxy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Propaganda in the United States
Do you still think this article should be deleted? Gazpacho 19:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In its current form most definitely. If the article gets deleted and then perhaps rewritten in a NPOV and encyclopaedic way with sources then it would be fine but the current article is utterly deletable.--Kalsermar 15:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute... did you look at the article again? Gazpacho 18:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I have. Right now there's one and a half paragraph there that actually deals with the subject.

Stephen Hendry
The edit in question was about Nigel Bond, not Jimmy White. I assume you meant to put Bond in your edit summary. Bond had not beaten Hendry in the World Championship since 1995. "It can be said" of course, is a weasel word. --Knucmo2 14:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that it wasn't the first time in 16 years that Hendry lost in the first round as I seem to recall he lost to White in the first round not all that long ago. You are correct that Bond had not beaten Hendry.--Kalsermar 14:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Const article is about the TEXT itself
all facts are from the text. John wesley 14:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could improve the format but there are quirky things in the actual text. John wesley 14:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Letters of marque and reprisal for instance.  What are they? John wesley 14:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was not disputing the accuracy of the facts you included, I am disputing whether they belong in an encyclopaedia.--Kalsermar 14:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

1514
Does the fact that 1514 has a nebula around it disqualify it as a star? JMK 12:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, in a way yes. NGC 1514 is a planetary nebula which consists of a star with a nebula around it but the designation NGC 1514 describes, for all intents and purposes, just the nebula. If you know what the designation of the star itself is, together with its magnitude than that would be appropriate to include in the list of stars, otherwise I would include the object under the subsection notable deep sky objects.--Kalsermar 17:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Why just Scorpio??
Why do you remove all the basic astrological information from Scorpio and not the other astrology pages like Libra or Sagittarius? Is this like a vendetta against an ex-girlfriend or something? Why not just take it all out, or just leave it all in? Nekohakase 18:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)]]
 * First off, I would like to request you change your tone of language. Secondly, I take irrelevant information out of those I come across and Scorpius happens to be on my watchlist right now. If and when I find it elsewhere I will take the same course of action as imho astrological information does not belong in these scientific articles about astronomical subjects.--Kalsermar 17:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This person is a sock puppet for Fraser Cain
Stop vandalising the Universe Today page Fraser. Your behaviour is contemptible. You do not have a patent on the title Universe Today and you have no right to monopolise the wikipedia page. End the masquerade.
 * I suggest you take these accusations Requests for CheckUser with hard evidence to back it up. when these accusations are summarily dismissed, as they will be, a quick look at my contributions would suffice, I expect an apology in this space. In the mean time I strongly suggest you not post your tirades on my talk page. I do not take kindly to being accused of vandalism and I sill report it to administrators if it happens again. One last thing, if you are so certain of your case then why didn't you sign your post so that everyone can see who it is that made these remarks. All it takes is typing four tildes (~).--Kalsermar 14:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for investigation of User:UniverseToday
Hi Kalsermar. You have been active in reverting from linkspam posted by User:UniverseToday. I've discovered a systematic pattern of this activity, and posted a request for investigation of User:UniverseToday at Requests_for_investigation, if you're interested in taking a look. Thanks. - Reaverdrop ( talk /nl/ wp:space ) 03:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Reaverdrop, for the heads up on this. I also noticed that User:UniverseToday is now claiming that I am Fraser Cain, which is of course ridiculous, and has posted as such on my user talk page. Thanks agin for letting me know of the RfI.--Kalsermar 13:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Dates
It is indeed a guideline to link only the first occurrence of a link, except where style dictates otherwise. However dates that include the month and day number will format differently according to user preferences, and hence should almost always be linked thus 1 May 1999 (WP:DATES) - bare months, years, days of the week, seasons or centuries should almost never be linked. Rich Farmbrough 15:43 14 June 2006 (GMT).


 * Hi, Kalsermar. You may be interested in my handy 'Dates' tab that reduces unnecessary date links. If you want to try it, simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to User:Kalsermar/monobook.js. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. This will give you 'Dates' tab in edit mode. If you press this tab, it will propose a removal of date links. You then simply accept or reject the proposed edit of the article. It also provides a 'Units' tab.


 * Feel free to try it out on articles in your watchlist. It is compatible with what Rich says. Regards. bobblewik 18:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The endless sock puppets of Universe Today
About this - it's not just the Universe Today article, he is definitely still vandalizing as actively as ever, after at least four sock puppets have been "banned indefinitely", under the very well established IP sock of, as well as the unregistered username. His edit summaries are routinely deceptive, such as mimicking the edit summaries he has seen so often against himself like "removing linkspam", as well as offensively deceptive, such as "porn spam from William Pietri removed yet again" for a null edit, William Pietri being one of the anti-vandals who has been trying to clean up after him. I know Jimbo likes to say that most vandal problems are resolved within a few days, but this vandal has been persisting under a horde of sock puppets for weeks, as you are familiar with. I mentioned that IP sock in my RfI two weeks ago, as you know, and despite the registered usernames in the RfI being blocked, nothing has really changed. What does it take to convince the admins to block an IP address? Anyway, thanks for your diligence on this. - Reaverdrop ( talk /nl/ w:s ) 09:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi again - I have discussed this a little with Petros471 here and added a blurb to Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse here. - Reaverdrop ( talk /nl/ w:s ) 12:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Reaverdrop, thanks for keeping me posted on this. Hopefully the situation will be resolved quickly. Thanks again,--Kalsermar 14:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletions
I am trying to remain level-headed here. What can I say, which has not already been said. Please refrain from deleting large portions of text from Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America. You have never contributed a single word to this article. Your only contribution thus far has been to start a AfD and delete large sections. If you do not find these particular examples to be terrorism, find sources which back up your POV, otherwise a revert war will start. I do not want a revert war, and I have attempted to do everything to stop this. Travb (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I expect the implication of vandalism on my part to be removed from this message forthwith or I will take this further.--Kalsermar 01:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You lost the AfD, now you continue to delete large portions of the article. You have contributed zero, zelch, nada, nothing to this article. Your only contributions involve large deletions. You also continue to ignore my questions on the talk page.  Lets use wikipolicy the way you use wikipolicy: Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. Further: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.  The key word is good faith.  There has been no good faith effort for you to improve this article. None.  You have added nothing to this article. Have you even added a tag, other than the AfD tag?  You lost the AfD, now you will lose this edit war, because your deletions are contrary to everything that wikipedia stands for. You have added nothing.  I already have requested that the page be protected, have been attempting to negotiate where this article will go in the future, have ask real conservative editors to join in editing, and will shortly request a mediator.  You lost the AfD, no amount of deletions will change this.  The article will stay, and it will grow.  You are an impedement to the articles progress, you are attempting to delete the article section by section, since you lost the AfD, this is not good faith.  Your inability to work to build consensus has led to this state we find ourselves in. Travb (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions to help
I noticed your edits to admins. I wrote the following in response on these two pages:


 * Hi admin, sorry to drag you into this. This users request was ignored by everyone but User:Jkelly on Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents, who recommended a RfC, which I have started. I also started mediation, and ask two other mediators I worked with before to mediate the article.


 * Kalsermar, If you feel that I have treated you unfairly, and you need support, I strongly suggest an advocate, they have helped me and others before: Association of Members' Advocates. You can also e-mail those who share your POV on the disputed page and work on strategies to counter my work. You are not alone on wikipedia.


 * Sorry again admin for bothering you.Travb (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Resolution
There is truly nothing that we could do to resolve this, is there? Maybe I should not have been so agressive on the AfD. It probably caused a lot of hard feelings. I hestitate about how much to say to you, because at this point, I worry that anything I say will somehow be used against me, but here it goes:

I think that once this article's inflammatory name is changed, which is causing a lot of problems, I think there is room for both of our views on this page. A good majority of the world hate America. There are reasons for this, documented, verifiable reasons, which I feel belong on wikipedia. You may disagree. I welcome this disagreement, and welcome your contributions to the article. Like I mentioned, I invited another conservative editor to edit this page. User:Rjensen is the best conservative editor on wikipedia, because he verifies every word he says. He has a strong POV like me, but I respect how he uses this POV: instead of simply deleting sections of articles (although he does delete whole referenced sections occasionally--which has caused a lot of bad feelings from me), he researches the topic and becomes the most knowlegable person on the subject on wikipedia. It is terrifying to go up against him, and we have had some real big fights. I noticed in your edits that you have done a lot of astronomy articles, but few political articles. Political articles are more emotionally intense and harder to edit. If you come away from this experience with anything, let me give you one word: Research, research, research. I have gone up against the most fearsome conservative editors and out researched them and won major conssesions, time after time.

Anyway, is there anyway I can get you to stop deleting large parts of the article? I admit readily it is POV. I want your help in making it less POV.

Anyway, sorry so long. Travb (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * O please Travb, stop humiliating yourself any further. Did you become my shrink now too? Please stop defacing my talk page, if you don't have anything substantial to say regarding an article then please do not post here.--Kalsermar 18:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

M93
Greetings. You added the spatial radius of Open Cluster M93 rather peculiarly as "12-12 light years". Maybe you might wish to change that? Wikiborg 22:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out Wikiborg, I've changed it to what I menat it to say, namely 10 to 12 light years. Thanks!--Kalsermar 00:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: requested input
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I was forced to reblock him. I was initially hoping to unblock him, but his past behavior is too concerning. I will let another administrator unblock if he desires. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Variable Star
Sorry, didn't mean to add a duplicate link to Heinlein's Variable Star novel... but the Variable Star page doesn't link to Heinlein's page, as you state that it does... am I missing something? — iGods দ 30 July 2006
 * You are missing a capital letter. Variable Star redirects to the novel, Variable star is the astronomical phenomenon.--Kalsermar 18:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad Astronomy Names
You may be interested in looking at http://www.seds.org/messier/m-names.html. This SEDS website appears to be the source of many of the strange names for astronomical sources used on Wikipedia, albeit not all of them. Note the contributors' names on the SEDS page.

It seems like http://www.seds.org was generally copied to create a lot of the clusters, nebulae, and galaxies pages on Wikipedia. I wonder if the SEDS people themselves helped to create the Wikipedia entries or if someone simply plagarized the material wholesale.

Alas, the SEDS website is not the only source of bad astronomy names. I see that you have already encountered the "Starfish Galaxy" and the "Fried Egg Galaxy". I also dislike the names "Bode's Galaxy" and "Cigar Galaxy" being used for Messier 81 and Messier 82, and I may attempt to move both of those pages in the future.George J. Bendo 18:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those links. I recognize at least one of the contributors on the first link as the now banned Wikipedia user (look at the vacuum cleaner galaxy for the name). On the subject of M81 and M82, I would certainly support a move to Messier 81 and 82 respectively.--Kalsermar 19:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Reagan Doctrine
Thanks for your note. I'd like your assistance on trying to get some reference in the article to the fact that there are large segments of the population who believe that this doctrine did lead to 9/11. I would agree to stating that it is generally unsubstantiated. However, an Eminem song about this topic is relevant because literally millions of people listen and believe. Isn't it also true that the doctrine did play a role in strengthening segments of the Afghan rebels that ultimately organized the attack? I realize some say that didn't include Bin Laden and some say it did, but the fact that this is a widely-held belief makes it relevant for inclusion (something small, at the bottom of the article, and noted as unsubstantiated). I will attempt to reinsert something along these lines. Please give it a look and hopefully we can agree on it. Thanks. AfricaEditor 19:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I am of the opinion that a song by any artist is never a suitable reference for an encyclopaedia. Anyone can record a song about anything they want and yes, millions listen to it and many of those may or may not believe what the song says but it isn't encyclopaedic material. What in general is needed to include anything on Wikipedia is a reliable source stating that something is the case. This can include but is not limited to, mainstream press (Washington Post, Fox News, MSNBC, that sort of thing), official government documents, scolars in a field of study (political science springs to mind in this case), etc. I don't know if the Reagan Doctrine led to the attacks and it isn't relevant what I think either. Citing sources is one of the pillars of Wikipedia editing.


 * Also, a widely held belief requires numbers to back that up. Provide polls by reputable polling companies to back it up but a poll is not enough. There's a large segment of the people who believe NASA never landed men on the moon yet they did so there has to be a good reason for including things like that. Look up under the many help topics available for undue weight. A belief some people hold may be included but care must be taken not to provide the same weight to, for instance the example cited, people who think Apollo 11 never happened and the scientific facts that state it did.


 * Bottom line is that if you can cite a source that says that someone with credibility says the Reagan Doctrine may have contributed to the attacks than by all means insert it with a link to the source. I hope this has helped and if you require any more help please don't hesitate to contact me again. Kalsermar 20:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. I tried to develop some new language in this criticism section, in light of your edit comment and note.  Also, I see you reported me for 3RR.  I think I missed your final revision when I was working on the revised language.  Nothing intentional.  Im light of that, I'd appreciate if you might remove that report, and please let me know if you have thoughts on the new language in the article.  Thanks.  AfricaEditor 20:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I will strike the report out, it wasn't for 3RR btw but because I felt, erroneously I now know, that you ignored my request and reverted it again without discussion. As for the text, I'll have a look shortly and reply on the talk page there if necessary. Thanks, Kalsermar 21:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In response to your good comments and in the interest of total cooperation, I removed all reference to the song in the article text and instead moved a link to the article to the "see also" section and even marked that "see also" section as criticism, so there is no confusion about the nature of it.  Also, sorry if I was too hasty with my edits.  I had cut and pasted my edits and entered them right after you had put in your revert edit.  My fault, and I'll try to be more careful in the future.  Thanks again.  AfricaEditor 21:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have no problem with the see also bit regarding the song. I also hope you didn't mind me taking out the 9/11 conspiracy part.--Kalsermar 21:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you have a look at this please?
Hello, I understand you are an administrator and in that capacity I'd like you to please have a look at the following three topics on my talk page:, and , especially the first and last. This user, Travb has been posting diatribes and patronizing comments elsewhere too. Would it be appropriate to simply remove these topics or to archive them? I am not sure about the policy regarding talk pages. Thank you, Kalsermar 18:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You can certainly archive comments from your talk page. Many feel that things shouldn't just be removed (as opposed to archived), especially without responding, but there is no actual policy absolutely prohibiting it. See WP:TALK for more information. I do think you two need to work on communicating alot better. Discussing why material should or should not be included in Wikipedia is vastly preferable to reverting back and forth and/or stating opinions about other editors. People disagree, but incivility and/or not trying to find a mutually acceptable compromise just guarantees that nobody will get what they want. --CBD 20:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I acknowledge the need to communicate with the user but wish to do so only on a content-of-article level and not a personal one with namecalling as this has become.--Kalsermar 20:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Stupid astronomy name patrol: Herschel 400 Catalogue
I found this new page on the Herschel 400 Catalogue. It looks like a good page, but the writer appears to be using a number of stupid astronomy names. I have already been through it once, but I plan on re-examining the page a second time. Would you like to take a look? Thank you, George J. Bendo 07:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this one out, I'll go over it as well.--Kalsermar 13:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing the page I created. You can blame my surfing and the Stephen James O'Meara Book (see the articles refs) for the names, I (wrongly) assumed that the names in the book were OK.--Jim Cornmell 14:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, I might actually have that book myself. A lot of authors use "common" names for objects but they're not necessarily accepted by the scientific community.--Kalsermar 14:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jim and I exchanged messages, and he now understands the problems that we've encountered in the past here on Wikipedia. I look forward to his work on Wikipedia. George J. Bendo 14:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

George Bush
Despite others  who see it as I do you are intent on having that paragraph your way, aren't you? Do not ever accuse me of vandalism again. I am going to ask that someone of importance look at this and decide on how it should be worded. "Duke53 | Talk" 05:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize for saying that you accused me of vandalism; what you accused me of was making "unencyclopaedic " (is that a word?) additions.
 * Other editors also seem to believe that noting dubya's age at the time of this incident is appropriate, so far there has been no consensus. "Duke53 | Talk" 07:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Merriam-Webster seems to think that 'Unencyclopaedic' isn't a word; is it then proper to use it in Wikipedia?
 * Whatever a dictionary says, it is still not encyclopaedic. The facts are known and that should be all that's mentioned.--Kalsermar 18:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay now I've got it: we can disregard dictionaries, but must be encyclopaedic here ... hardee har har. Fact is Bush was 30 years old trying to portray his drinking and drugging as youthful indiscretions when he was well into his 30s."Duke53 | Talk" 19:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * He was born in '46 and it happened in '76 and you are saying the reader can't figure his age out? Fact is also that Bush said it was due to youthful indiscretions, it is not up to a Wikipedia editor to qualify that. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia so yes, we need to be encyclopaedic.--Kalsermar 00:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that it's proper to make up words to be 'encyclopaedic'? "Duke53 | Talk" 17:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am closing this discussion as it is futile to get you to listen to what is being said.--Kalsermar 01:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not surprised. Great job of communicating (which is advised by Wikipedia in cases like this) but you've decided to not do that. Way to dodge answering questions.
 * Your theory of communicating seems to be me listening to you, but not vice versa. :) "Duke53 | Talk" 04:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)