User talk:Lawrence Cohen/Archive 1

copyright notice
You cannot revert a copyright notice, only admin. 201.240.30.26 13:55, 30 August 2007
 * Unfortunately I dont think you did it right. You can't blank an entire article because three passages out of the whole thing, which is about 25% of the total, MIGHT be a copyright violation. I fixed your error and rewrote every passage sourced to the ourcampaigns website. • Lawrence Cohen  15:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Joe Szwaja
Please look at Joe Szwaja if you can again and copyedit? I cleaned up and rewrote all material from the claimed copyvio. thanks. • Lawrence Cohen  17:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Did so, good work cleaning it up. There was very little to fix. What went on with this article before? I was confused, some I.P kept blanking the page, was quite annoying. --Chil dzy  ¤ Ta lk  22:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what Peru's issue was, to be honest... he/she kept fighting with people about a copyvio. I saw a few sentences that were lifted from that site so I just rewrote it all to fix it. Peru just kept coming back anyway screaming about copyrights and ended up blocked. • Lawrence Cohen  22:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I got blocked for less than an hour once the block admin realized that your request for blocking was not appropriate for the situation. The rewrite is much much better, seriously.  I just wanted the original author to clean up his POV issues.201.240.31.236 17:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well you did well fixing it up and referencing it, as I say i only made a couple of minor changes to it. I'll give it a better copy edit sometime in the near future --Chil dzy  ¤ Ta lk  22:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks! • Lawrence Cohen  22:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work on the Szwaja part, Lawrence. Could you turn your idea to the Jean Godden page next? Mikesmash 22:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure and thanks. I want to add some more to this one first and clean up all the references as soon as I see the best way to do them so the footnotes can be read easier. • Lawrence Cohen  22:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence, a Godden operative (her campaign manager in fact) keeps editing any and all criticism, even those cited in local papers and accusing me of slander - which it's not. The quotes are from a prominent Seattle activist in a couple local papers and are cited and linked and I put them in context to balance out the illusion of the subject being universally loved. If you could intercede, I'd appreciate it. A neutral third party is necessary, especially with how insulting and condescending this guy is. It's devolving into a revert war. Can you check out the Godden article? Gracias. Mikesmash 07:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll add it to the watchlist, sure, and see what is occurring. • Lawrence Cohen  13:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I responded to this on the Godden talk page. I also find it hilarious that a member of Joe Szwaja's campaign team is accusing me of being a "Godden operative." Oooo, sounds scary. Like I'm a Bond villain. Anyways, the sources are completely illegitimate. I explain why. And claims Mike makes aren't even supported by the sites he links to. This back and forth is getting ridiculous, however. I would hope that we all have better things to do with our lives.Landsfarthereast 00:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Carlo, no one is chaining you to a tree and requiring your participation. The remarks are well cited by a legitimate source. I'm a volunteer for a canddiate for office, yes. You're a campaign manager. I've made yard signs and doorbelled, you're in charge of her campaign. Remember that you are the one that tried twice to edit out any mention of the names of Godden's three primary opponents. I like having Lawrence involved because he doesn't give a crap about this election (I don't even think he lives in our state) and has been fair and even handed so far. He's done a good job cleaning up the Szwaja site and helping with citations. I'd like to see him do the same to your candidates' site. Mikesmash 02:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion nomination for Criticisms of libertarian socialism
Could you please add the AfD notice to the top of the article? That allows people interested in it and/or people with it on their watch lists to know that deletion has been proposed. I think it would also be fair to tell the creator of the article in case he returns to Wikipedia (he was last here in early August, apparently). If you don't slap the tag on the top of the article, some admin will just have to do it and that will delay the deletion decision. I'm sure this wasn't deliberate on your part (and maybe you're putting it on as I'm typing this.) Thanks! Noroton 16:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I got it now. This twinkle tool still has kinks in it, I suppose. • Lawrence Cohen  16:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks! Noroton 16:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Andy Murray
Sir, take the time to review the page before handing out warnings. You will see that JimmyMac is going against the consens for Andy Murray's introduction, which has long since stated that he is Scottish. It is only recently that one or two people are introducing him as British.

It is you who is in the wrong here. Kindly remove the warning on my userpage and properly review articles before taking action.77.102.8.117 13:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I would agree- the edit summary (Reverted 1 edit by 77.102.8.117 identified as vandalism to last revision by JimmyMac82. using TW) is inaccurate as 77.102.8.117 was reverting to a version agreed on by multiple parties on the talk page. I assume this was an honest mistake, as tools such as twinkle are not perfect. Lurker (said · done) 15:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded on both your talk pages. Sorry, when I found the page I just saw the sources being blanked, and thats what happened. Apologies. • Lawrence Cohen  16:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Page protection request
I've removed your page protection request, as it had already been requested below (by JimmyMac). Here's hoping the admins protect it soon. Lurker (said · done) 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you sir. What a mess. • Lawrence Cohen  16:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you! :) • Lawrence Cohen  16:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem =p And if you ever want anything copyediting again you know where to ask! =] --Chil dzy  ¤ Ta lk  19:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Violation of Wikipedia policy.
I gave up and reverted my fourth revision. I want to be able to continue to contribute to wikipedia. However, I don't appreciate being censored. I don't understand why my last version was bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.89.122 (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page and on Talk:Madonna. We should be all good now! • Lawrence Cohen  21:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the revert of vandalism on my user pages again thank you.<font color="#FF 45 00">Arnon Chaffin (<font color="DA A5 20">Talk ) 13:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ľudovít Štúr
Certainly, I think the timeline information is useful (not to mention, detailed). I don't consider it redundant, as it contains much of his works; the previous section does not. The timeline information was thus retained in the article, but reorganised into paragraph form.

To be honest, I don't particularly care whether it is presented in paragraph or bullet form. If you think it is more appropriately presented as a bulleted timeline, then I'll volunteer to reorganise the information into that format. Personally, I just didn't like the look of a massive, sprawling, unbroken, bulleted timeline. I thought that in paragraph form, the information would be easier to break into sections, and thus easier to read. Let me know what you think. – Liveste 06:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help in fighting for the obvious. Squash Racket 16:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It does seem simply rational and common-sense, yes, that is why I chimed in on Talk:Romanianization. • Lawrence Cohen  16:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tron sequel (film)
Tron sequel (film), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Tron sequel (film) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Tron sequel (film) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Tron sequel (film) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Spryde 17:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have always been told that unless it is confirmed and not rumored, an article is not appropriate. Am I wrong?Spryde 17:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that the fact this is all over every news site makes it notable, but I guess we'll see... • Lawrence Cohen  17:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Lawrence, consider using the edit summary box so that we can get an idea of what type of edit you are making. This saves time for other project collaborators (yes, we are all working together), because then we don't need to actually look at the edit if it's something routine like archiving a talk page. - Jehochman Talk 18:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions
No problem about the correction! Quick question for you - the last sentence of the lead paragraph to Joe Szwaja seems a touch NPOV. Do you think it's necessary to have there? Maybe it could be something like "Szwaja's main issues in his campaigns have been XX, Y, and Z" and cite his website? Let me know if I'm off. Thanks! Surfeited 21:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Amazing what one word can do! Thanks :) Surfeited 21:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess if there was one thing I would change, it would be the cite, if there's a different one. There aren't too many who see Eat the State has a neutral source for news.  But I'm not sure if we could find a better one.  Surfeited 21:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD Word Choice
Hi there. Just a quick note: please don't use the word vanity in AfDs, regardless of how much the subject deserves it. It can be inflammatory, and there are usually other words that work just as well. See WP:AFD. (Or at the risk of using a argument ad jimboneum, see | here). Best, -- B figura (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry, I won't do that again. Which did I do it in? • Lawrence Cohen  18:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not entirely sure to be honest. I was just skimming through the AfD's and saw it. Not a huge problem though. -- B figura (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply
I have replied to your query on my talk page. - Philippe &#124; Talk 22:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, back atcha. Thanks, Phillipe. :) • Lawrence Cohen  22:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Nickels Nicknames
Hi,

(Regarding your removal of my comments on Mayor Nickel's talk page.) You suggested that my post "...Could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous."

I'm not trying to be insulting to you, but defaming the mayor of Seattle is just about impossible. Mr. Nickels is what the law calls a "public figure."

I'm sure you were just ignorant of the law. You can learn more about libel law at the Hustler_Magazine_v._Fallwell page.

You might want to be aware of this info before deleting other user's comments. I certainly wouldn't try to censor you.

Cheers! 64.105.66.170 22:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have replied on your talk page. Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen  23:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Szwaja Fair Trade Coffee
It's cool! I noticed it a few days ago and was like... wha? I was just in a cleaning up mood tonight, I guess! Surfeited 05:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Peru meteor
I saw it: very nicely written! You should consider doing some work on Wikinews. Once you have some articles under your belt, you can apply for accreditation to do original journalism. -- David  Shankbone  16:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

copied from User talk:Josiah Rowe : Would you mind tweaking the wikilink on the ITN template to 2007 Peruvian meteorite event? We just renamed it from the old illness title; this one is much better. • Lawrence Cohen  23:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Nice article! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) • Lawrence Cohen  06:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip! -- David  Shankbone  14:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Dunin AfD
Hi there, I noticed you comment here that this person is notable. Can you find any independent verification of the claims made in the article? All I can find on Google are mirrors of this Wiki article and there is nothing of any note in the scientific databases on his supposed work. I'm starting to feel very suspicious as to if the core claims of this article are really true. Thanks for any help Tim Vickers 18:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Atomic_Hooligan
Not sure if this is a glitch in your script, but instead of creating a new AfD, you've blanked-and-overwritten the previous one. I need to go to work now so won't have time to fix this, can you do so? —  iride scent   <i style="color:#5CA36A;">(talk to me!)</i>  23:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that was odd. I pulled it down, sorry. • Lawrence Cohen  23:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem - I know WP:TW is in the middle of a rewrite so it's probably a bug they haven't caught. Might be worth notifying them —  iride scent   <i style="color:#5CA36A;">(talk to me!)</i>  23:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

2007 Peruvian meteorite event
This two category Category:Meteorites and Category:Arsenic is not important to the article. See in meteorites category for example it shows only meteorite i dont see any meteorite impact on that article and see in arsenic category. All this article to that category does not match. So i have deleted this two irrelevant category and you reverted. --SkyWalker 08:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Perumeteorcrater.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Perumeteorcrater.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I replied on the page there... Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_September_24. Thanks... • Lawrence Cohen  13:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Aeroflot terminated destinations
Hi Lawrence, terminated destinations list is not even part of WikiProject Aviation/Airline destination lists, however since its been created it should remain but in a manner that does not use too much space nor give unecessary details or compete/clash with the main airline destination article.

The current listing for Aeroflot terminated destinations is doing all of the above, what harm if its format is simplified and yet serves the purpose? the main aim is to just have previous destinations in there and not make it a formal "pomp and show" thing like the main destinations article, with countries and airports information.(inspector 16:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC))
 * Just so I'm sure, are you talking about this? • Lawrence Cohen  17:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.
<div style="font-family:Wedding Text, Linotext, Old English Text MT, serif; font-size:58px; line-height:69px">

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is kinda cooler in Hungarian, but...
I see the bird flu outbreak just East of me has popped up here. It is cool stuff indeed, good find! Pete.Hurd 05:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ouch, hope that doesn't get out of hand! • Lawrence Cohen  18:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I donno, apparently that strain is only a danger to poultry, plus, the little yellow bird icon is no where near as scary looking as the throbbing red "Technological Disaster" icon in China (which turned out to be the floor giving out in a house built over a 2m deep lake a cyanide... nine dead, more pulled out alive...). How completely surreal, it belongs in an art gallery. Pete.Hurd 19:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007
<div style="font-family:Wedding Text, Linotext, Old English Text MT, serif; font-size:58px; line-height:69px">

Automatically delivered by COBot 02:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ataturk
If you have such dislike of violation of wikipedia rules, ı think you should be in protest of extreme racist language used by the user Cleander in the talk page of that article, instead of arguing for the inclusion of some silly materials he and his sockpuppet IPs keep adding..There isnt really an edit warring going on, there simply is one user who is somehow still unblocked.. "Seeing the materials in the internet by google search" is not making anything accurate..--laertes d 15:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea yet what is even happening there, I just found the article while I did a glance at Recent Changes, and reverted what appeared to be removal of a sourced paragraph. I then asked for the page to be semi-protected, as it appeared that lots of IPs and new users were going back and forth aggressively and given the page's protection history. I then discovered one IP was an open proxy and reported that... Who is Cleander? I see he hasn't edited the page in 2+ weeks. Could you give me an idea of what is happening? • Lawrence Cohen  15:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think no admin have yet noticed his presence otherwise i dont consider that such comments in the talk page would be tolerated: "You are schoolmasters of genocide and barbarity and Mustafa Kemal just added a "modern" facade to your murderous national character. You have given to humanity nothing else than horror, massacres, barbarity and ottoman backwardness. You will always be our enemies until Nemesis throws you back to Mongolia and Ulan Bator where you belong." it is the talk page, with the heading: " Reply to my fellow Mongols Deliogul & Laertes"
 * User is a hard core natıonalist, he keeps addding the same paragraph again and again..All the IPs who are adding this paragraph into the article are single purpose accounts, they dont make any other edit but just to show up adding this one..That leads me to consider that all those mysterıus IPs do belong to hım..That is my short summary of the situation..--laertes d 16:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Lawrence Cohen concerning mustafa kemal
I think it is no good to listen to turkish agent provocateurs such as Laertes d or Delioglu who are getting paid by the turkish government to safeguard the memory of Mustafa Kemal, the perpetrator of the genocide of Greeks, Armenians and Kurds in Asia Minor. The TRUTH hurts them a lot and like neo-nazis try to hide the Genocides that their beloved Kemal and his thugs did. I asked them for dialogue and THEY REFUSED! Instead of arguments they only offered slurs! So why are they offended when they really behave as Mongols??? Lawrence, you can check for yourself the validity of the paragraph that the turkish agents hated. I include it here so that you can check if it is "silly material" or the plain TRUTH about the inventor of "modern Turkey". Go and ask any Greek, Armenian or Kurd about the facts described in the paragraph or check Wikipedia!

"---Controversy--- Mustafa Kemal is however remembered both by Greeks and Armenians as the one who continued and brought into conclusion the process of extermination of the Christian populations of Asia Minor which started by the regime of the Young Turks and culminated in the Armenian Genocide (around 1.500.000 victims) and the Pontian Genocide (aprox.700.000 victims). Moreover Mustafa Kemal is accused by many (see George Horton: "The Blight of Asia", 1926) as the instigator of the Great Fire of Smyrna that destroyed the Greek and Armenian quarters of the city (now known as Izmir) that erupted after the entry of the turkish army at late August 1922 and also for the indiscrete massacre of many Greek and Armenian inhabitants of city, including the Greek Orthodox bishop Chrysostomos of Smyrna who was lynched by turkish mobs and soldiers (see Horton and Dido Sotiriou: Matomena Homata -eye witness account). Recently a lot of articles in international newsmedia have explored the issue of Kemal's sexuality, implying that during his early life he was engaged in homosexual activities." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleander (talk • contribs) 13:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please knock it off with the hostile attacks or else I will report this, if it happens again. Do you have any sources I can look this up myself on, for the allegations? • Lawrence Cohen  13:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just check on the terms: Pontian Genocide, George Horton, Great Fire of Smyrna, Chrysostomos of Smyrna, Armenians. These are all well attested FACTS that are included in Wikipedia with external sources. The turkish agents Laertes and Deliogul are REFUSING them. So who is really making "hostile attacks"? Me or these turkish nazis??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleander (talk • contribs) 13:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I’m lucky that I don't need anybody’s payments to live my life. By the way, I'm a social democrat with a humble interest in history. You even started to carry this useless discussion to the talk pages of other Wikipedians. What are we going to do with you? Deliogul 17:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Deliogul, just do to me what your ancestors did to mine! Exterminate me! That's the turkish way of dealing with non-desirables! By the way, don't try to trick me with "social democrat" labels! Your Bulent Ecevit that invaded Cyprus in 1974 was "social democrat"... but as all Kemalists he was rather "national socialist" (nazi). I will only stop if the "controversy" paragraph is included indefinitely in Mustafa Kemal section. As I told you earlier, I am open to a dialogue for suggestions and modifications on this paragraph but I am firmly in favour that a paragraph for Pontian Genocide, George Horton, Great Fire of Smyrna, Chrysostomos of Smyrna, Armenians SHOULD be included in Kemal's biography otherwise it is very one-sided, a mere praise. No matter how many times you delete the paragraph, you cannot erase TRUTH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleander (talk • contribs) 09:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Krongard
Hardly your fault, the article itself wasn't entire clear either. -- B figura (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Letters To Jenny
Hi. I noticed you posted a message about workign on the Letters To Jenny article. I've slapped up an tag on the article which is a better way to let editors know that major rework is going on. You can remove it when you're done with the najor work. And thanks for taking in the article! Regards. -- Whpq 17:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I totally missed this. I'll take down the hangon, it'll be a good while before I get back to it (but it's watchlisted). Thanks, • Lawrence Cohen  03:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

copyediting
Hi! I noticed you had a ton of featured articles. I have two pages nominated for GA, would you mind taking a pass at them? They are 2007 Peruvian meteorite event and Joe Szwaja. Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen  23:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I reviewed both articles and made some comments under "Peer review" on the talk pages for each. Great work on the articles. Cla68 00:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cla! I'll start going back over them again. • Lawrence Cohen  03:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Good edit
On this one. That wording about nails it for NPOV I think. • Lawrence Cohen  20:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's the original wording I had suggested in the talk page. I didn't notice the omission right away, but I also think it's a good way to address the issues regarding Blackwater's title. BTW, good job getting the article in the news feature. --Sawyerkaufman 03:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the guys over there on ITN are really nice. And yes, it's probably the best way to go about it for now. • Lawrence Cohen  03:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry i never got back to you before, about adding that article to my watchlist and copyediting again. Im back at college again which means i have a bit less time to get things done. I've added your article and will have a check on the article --<font face="Comic Sans MS"><font color="#000000">Chil <font color="#E3170D">dzy  ¤ <font color="#000000">Ta <font color="#E3170D">lk  14:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. I missed a couple of messages on my talk, as well. Hope the year goes well. • Lawrence Cohen  03:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh thanks it will go well, spending a little bit less time on wiki this year. Unfortunately so... Its a great hobby, its real achievement to contribute to something like. You seem to have come a long way on here in a very short amount of time, that's good to see. If you ever need any help for whatever reason just drop us a message --<font face="Comic Sans MS"><font color="#000000">Chil <font color="#E3170D">dzy  ¤ <font color="#000000">Ta <font color="#E3170D">lk  22:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Blackwater articles overnight
There was a problem overnight. See the User contributions page for User:Haizum.--Pleasantville 10:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * After I pinged ANI again (see the main Blackwater USA talk page) it seems to have calmed down thanks to Haemo, or he just gave up being contentious for the sake of contentious. Hopefully. • Lawrence Cohen  03:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He's deleted all Blackwater-related items from his talk page. --Pleasantville 15:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I won't be responding to him again. I have no idea why he's going out of his way to try to bait everyone, but it's disruptive, as he simply won't edit the article. • Lawrence Cohen  16:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Blackwater
It would be great to get an interview, but I have a feeling they aren't speaking to the press right now. -- David  Shankbone  18:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Signature
I like your signature: • Lawrence Cohen …but the red font may cause some Wikipedians to believe that your talk page does not exist, please change it. Thanks, &mdash;Lights 17:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And sorry, I never thought of that. Is this better? • Lawrence Cohen  17:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's much better. &mdash;Lights 17:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD on Human chemistry
Hi there, the article has been changed substantially since your vote so you might want to have another look at the new version. All the best Tim Vickers 15:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me take a look. • Lawrence Cohen  15:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I updated. Good catch. • Lawrence Cohen  15:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The new Iraq private security group scandal
BBC has identified the group, Unity Resources Group don't have a page on Wikipedia yet, but they are mentioned as member of International Peace Operations Association. Here's their web sites: and. Something for you and/or User:Pleasantville to dig into? --RenniePet 23:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you let her know too? She may have more time to have a go at it, I'm going to be less active (possibly) the next 1-2 days. • Lawrence Cohen  00:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've started the page: Unity Resources Group. --Pleasantville 20:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Szwaja page
I strongly encourage you to use the talk page to discuss changes in a conversation. • Lawrence Cohen  20:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I used the talk page. I justified every change I made. The Eat the State thing is totally inconsistent with NPOV. I qualified it, and you deleted it. You also cite a questionnaire filled out by Szwaja as a source. Again, this is a bogus source and you know it. And yes, the inclusion of a Mcdermott vote from 2005 was also irrelevant. Feel free to explain where I'm wrong. 216.162.198.214 20:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I set up a request for review on this noticeboard: here. Please reply on that noticeboard page in regards to this--I prefer to not discuss this here, but on the noticeboard at this time.


 * As the questionnaire is a primary source for non-negative information, about the subject, I believe it is fine. I fail to see how a source for a simple comment (which is not a negative comment) like calling someone "progressive" conflicts with NPOV. I have also brought that passage to light in that posting. I removed the McDermott sentence about CAFTA. Remember, the purpose of the article is present all valid views and facts about Szwaja. • Lawrence Cohen  20:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you are really doing a lot of good work on the Szwaja page, though the categories on the talk page are getting a bit long. Bevinbell 03:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. All automated stuff for those categories, though. I don't think it's a big deal. • Lawrence Cohen  04:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Tallest Women in the World
Why did you take out my entry for Alana Renaud - 6'11" lady from Georgia, who featured in a British TV programme called "Superhumans: Giants" in early October 2007 ? Attractive lady, planning to get married, plenty of substantiated entries on the internet. All entries on the list get to become famous personalities in their own right....they don't have to be volleyball players or basketball players. They can be humble farmers in their own lands, such as Bao Xishun in Mongolia and Leonid Stadnyk in Ukraine (top 2 living tallest men). I'm new to Wikipedia...so am not sure how you reply to this? Lloyd1717 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lloyd1717 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Idiot
You go and change Tornisterausgabe even though I wrote most of the article on Mein Kampf but so happened not to be logged in (my username is Iconoclast322). Why? Tornisterausgabe should be translated as Soldier's edition as ausgabe means edition and though tornister doesn't translate to soldier but rather describes the bag for carrying belongings a Soldiers Backpack Edition didn't seem to convey the meaning. 84.68.222.189 23:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please be civil. Calling me an idiot is very inappropriate. If you feel the spelling/differences should stand, feel free to re-add them. However, if you are "Iconoclast322", I don't see any edits to the Mein Kampf article. • Lawrence Cohen  23:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding User:Hopiakuta
My advice is to ignore him. Take a look at his user page, and at his various postings. He's just playing with the system and trying to get a rise out of people. --RenniePet 21:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that is good advice for now, yeah. After I asked him the second time I saw all the oddness on his pages. • Lawrence Cohen  21:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh hi, sorry for the late reply. Reverting people that do what he is doing is really the best idea. No reason to allow the page to fill with whatever he was posting, and he's just trying to get incredulous comments and questions. I'll admit too, that I stared way to long at his comment trying to figure out if there actually was a method to his madness. --<font color="Red">arkalochori <font color="Blue">undefined  01:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation templates
I notice that your citing sources in the Storm Botnet article using long hand. I'm not sure if you are aware of Citation Templates but they might be able to save you time in getting the same results. You just copy and paste the template into the article with a ref tag at the beginning and end, and fill in the necessary information. Anything that you don't fill in doesn't appear in the reference section. I personally like them because they're easy to spot while you have an article in the edit view because everything is split up by vertical lines. Hewinsj 18:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, cool. I'll check them out. Thanks. Are those usually recommended for GAs/FAs etc.? I was doing it long hand mainly because it seemed easier, but this is nice too. I'll start converting them later. • Lawrence Cohen  19:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's cool, no harm done. I use them myself and figured I'd mention in case it helps make the process go more easily.  Long hand tends to take me more time formatting which this takes care of.  These do tend to pop up more often in GA or FA articles (but not always) because it gives the same style. Hewinsj 19:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, where do you define a name field on these, to condense sources for the a b c citations? • Lawrence Cohen  19:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that much doesn't change. When you first insert a reference it would go and when you re-use the reference it goes  .  Let me know if this helps.Hewinsj 19:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good; I tried it here. Do you think it makes it hard to read? I'm just thinking that with a heavily sourced article it could be chaotic to read through all the up-and-down scrolling. • Lawrence Cohen  20:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, my bad. You don't have to do it vertically like that, they just display them like that to make the individual items in the citation more distinct.  Each item in the citation just needs to be separated by a vertical line | like | this.  Your reference would read like this:  .  After that if you want to cite something else you can just copy and paste the whole template and replace the necessary information. Hewinsj 20:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And OK, I do like this better. I'm just dreading going back through all the articles I've been working on to redo them all now. :) • Lawrence Cohen  04:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Monobook.css
If it isn't working for you, after you add: table.fundraiser-box {display:none}, be sure you clear the cache, by reloading the page (ctrl-f5) or ctrl-r). It works for me, should work for you after refreshing. Hope it does! <font color="8B00FF">Ariel <font color="F64A8A">♥ <font color="007FFF">Gold 23:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you SO much, it was beginning to give me a headache as well literally from looking at its constant motion. A lot of people are going to be physically affected by that. • Lawrence Cohen  23:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I just passed along the info, but I'm glad it worked for you. Krimpet has come up with a temporary solution for anon editors, which is good as well. I'm sure the devs will fix it rather quickly, but in the meantime, yes, quite a headache, lol. <font color="8B00FF">Ariel <font color="F64A8A">♥ <font color="007FFF">Gold 23:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, GA passed !
-- Feel free to add that to your userpage if you wish. Great job on the article! If you haven't already done so, consider helping out with a review at WP:GAC. I am going to make a habit myself of trying to review at least two Good Article Candidates for each one I nominate. Cheers. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 01:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Congratulations Lawrence. By the way, did you see the story about the Storm botnet in the current issue of Newsweek? --<font color="Red">arkalochori <font color="Blue">undefined  03:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thank you guys! And no, I missed that, I'll track it down. I have all those new sources I added to external links to pore through, as well... heck, this may end up big enough for an FA run. :-) • Lawrence Cohen  05:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And I'd like to help, soon. I think I need to get a bit better at it first, but soon! • Lawrence Cohen  05:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ballard Carnegie Library GA nomination
I've reviewed the article, but there are a few things that are keeping me from promoting it.
 * 1) "Together with their work and a $15,000 grant from Andrew Carnegie, the library was built on a lot 100 feet square, which was purchased for $2,100 raised by local businesses and citizens." Not only does this imply that the library was built together with money (since when is money built), it also makes no distinction between the reading room the women collected for and the actual library, in fact thee reading room isn't even mentioned.
 * 2) "Initially, the library had a cache of books waiting for the completion and grand opening that was provided by local residents and schools, as Carnegie's gift for the construction did not cover the initial costs of new books.[6] A call was also put out for citizens to bring free books to donate to the new facility." If you already have a cache of books, then why would you put a call out for donations? I'm not sure but I suspect that the cache is the pile of donated books, in which case you might want to get rid of the duplicate mention.
 * 3) The lead section doesn't accurately summarize the article. - Mgm|(talk) 11:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll take a crack at it over the next couple of days. Seven days for a hold, right? My time is usually shorter in the latter half of each month, but I'll get at it. I'll copy these to the article talk page as well. • Lawrence Cohen  15:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've done some copyediting. See here. Please let me know if I inadvertedly changed the meaning of those sentences. - Mgm|(talk) 17:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, the meaning if anything reads even more clearly to me now than my own previous wording. Does it seem totally clear to you? My original wording honestly sucked, there. • Lawrence Cohen  17:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've had my fair share of sucky wordings. I'm glad my version works for you. I'll just wait for you to expand the lead section then. - Mgm|(talk) 17:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll get it tonight, I think. Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen  23:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've read the library housed a reading room before becoming a library. You say it housed a "freeholders' library". The net comes up empty. Exactly what does that mean and how does it differ from a regular one? - Mgm|(talk) 18:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's from this source here. The wording in the source is a bit unique, in that I hadn't seen that phrase used anywhere else before myself. Basically, I included the fact as a sort of background history on the formation of the library in Ballard. The freeholders' library (I'm assuming from the description that it literally was a library begun by freeholders predated the Carnegie library. The timeline of libraries in Ballard was basically: Freeholders' one > The reading room by the Christian Womens' group > the Ballard Carnegie Library. I left it all in for context, to track the history of the library from before it's creation through it's deprecation. Does that make sense? • Lawrence Cohen  18:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll do a final read-through within approx. 48 hours. - Mgm|(talk) 09:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen  13:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I just saw you passed it--excellent! :) • Lawrence Cohen  13:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD's
Hi. Just in case you don't already know, it would probably be better to nominate similar articles for deletion (like you did with these three articles) in a group AfD. It's pretty simple. There are instructions here. No big deal, just for convenience, especially when they all have the exact same reason for nomination. - Rjd0060 23:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it, and I saw that, but in this case I think I wanted to do them individually, as there are some sourcing differences between them. They're part of a series, and I think they are different enough subject wise that independent ones may be needed. • Lawrence Cohen  23:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I know group nom's are not always best, but thought I would let you know in case you didn't already. - Rjd0060 00:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please let me know when you settle on a centralized place to discuss these articles. I'd like to toss in my US$.02.  Thanks! -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks   19:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:75.162.105.19
I did see that. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, though. It's probably something that should be brought up at WP:ANI -- I'm not sure how to handle it. -- Merope 20:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll mention it there. • Lawrence Cohen  20:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

courtesy
I don't think we have ever interacted before.

I have noticed that even though we should all be well aware of the wikipedia's policies about refraining from personal attacks, being civil, and assuming our correspondents are writing from a postion of good faith, a great many people ignore these policies when they contribute comments in the deletion fora.

You called Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda a "hit piece/attack article".

I write on controversial topics. Consequently I make a special effort to fully comply with WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:NOR. I don't expect to succeed 100% of the time. I think I do a pretty good. But because I don't expect to succeed 100% of the time, I make an effort to take every civil, specific challenge seriously

I think I deserve to have the effort i put into complying with these policies matched by those who have a concern about my contributions.

I think I deserve to have those who have a concern show me the courtesy to assume good faith. IMO calling someone else's contributions a "hit piece" is a serious violation of WP:AGF

I think I deserve to have those who have a concern to be cite the specific passages that triggered their concern. General comments, like calling a whole article a "hit piece" is irresponsible. That comment of yours is so unspecific you leave your readers to guess as to whether you think the article is a "hit piece" against the captives, or a "hit piece" against their accusers.

If there are specific passages you think you can argue lapse from WP:NPOV, then cite them, explain yourself. If you can't explain why you think something is biased I think you should ask yourself if your perception of bias really means the aritlce is biased. Frankly, it has been my experience that a lot of those who are convinced my contributions are biased, if they explain themselves, leave me with the impression that their perception of a biased POV is due to them viewing the article through their own unexamined biased preconceptions -- and that the article is actually not biased at all.

I don't get that many challenges. When I ask my challengers to be civil and specific:
 * 1) some of my correspondents have been able to over civil responses, and sometimes they helped me realize I had allow a lapse from policy ot slip out. When they help me realize I made a lapse I openly acknowledge it, and I fix it.
 * 2) some of my correspondents offerec civil responses, which showed that their concern was based on misconceptions.
 * 3) some don't respond at all;
 * 4) some respond by wikilawyering, by irresponsible use of wikitags, by personal attacks, by wikistalking -- some people can't stand being asked to explain their reasoning.

I hope you will offer me a civil, serious, specific reply.

I am going to remind you that a perceived POV is not supposed to be one of the criteria we offer for deletion. A perceived POV is supposed to trigger a discussion about the perceived POV, on the talk page.

Peace Geo Swan 08:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Geo, nice to meet you. I seriously did it mean to impugn you in any way, shape, or form. My feeling is that labeling any person a terrorist, using only a singular source or primary source (here, the unreliable DoD), simply repeats the point of view of the DoD, and unfortunately doesn't seem to square with me per BLP. It's not the list itself, nor any of your contributions--if multiple sources or multiple governments labeled them as terrorists, I'd be fine with it. Using just the words of one government is the problem. It merely parrots and repeats the DoD's stance, and we can't give them (or the UK government, or the Saudi government, or whomever) any special weight or value. If we do this will either be an advocacy piece, or a hit piece/attack article, depending on the reader's point of view, and nothing more. As such, the article in it's current form (and name) is unacceptable.


 * Rename, multiple sources required. Probably should never exist at this current name, as it could be seen as an endorsement of the DoD stance, which we will not do.


 * I'll add this reply to the AfD as well. • Lawrence Cohen  12:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe your concerns are based on serious misconceptions of policy: In particular, the very first sentence of WP:VER says:


 * I believe this means I have no obligation to find other sources to prove the allegations are true. I believe the 2039 memos and transcripts the DoD has released fully fulfill all the requirements for verifiability that I need to fulfill.


 * I urge you to go back and re-read the wikipolicies and procedures you cite, so you don't make futher mistakes, like this one.


 * Note: WP:VER is an official policy; WP:OR is an official policy; WP:NPOV is an official policy; WP:BLP is an official policy. WP:Notability, on the other hand, is not an official policy; WP:RS is not an official policy.  You are treating RS and Notability as if they were official policies.  This is, I believe, a serious mistake.  Notability is just too value laden and subjective to be useful for controversial topics, like the war on terror.  IMO, because notability is a value laden and subjective metric, for controversial topics we have to fall back on WP:VER, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV.


 * I saw your note over on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, were you wrote:


 * I think you have that backwards. I have asked you to cite the specific passages you think do not comply with policy.  You haven't done so.  You showed no sign that you reviewed the 80% of the article you blanked, as I asked.  Frankly, I consider this highly irresponsible and uncooperative.


 * And, of course, since the wikipedia seeks verifiability, not truth, I believe you are completely mistaken to expect me to cite additional 3rd party sources that the captives are terrorists. That the men are alleged to be associated with these organizations is entirely verifiable.


 * I have no intention of trying to prove that the captives are terrorists for you because I don't believe you are correct we need to prove the allegations are true before reporting that they have been made; (2) I have read the transcripts, as you, apparently, have not -- most of the captives are not terrorists. The extremely time-consuming searches you have demanded from me are very likely to be wild-goose chases.


 * Regarding your innocent confidence that JTF-GTMO is doing a good job. You live in a free country.  You are free to believe what ever you like.  But, if you want to express an informed opinion you can go here


 * Candidly Geo Swan 02:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As a courtesy, I am informing you I raised your concerns over on Reliable sources/Noticeboard.  Geo Swan 03:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it, really. I hope you see why I was/am so worried--it's the possibility of us inferring that someone is a terrorist, when they aren't. • Lawrence Cohen  13:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am glad you appreciate getting the heads-up. Since you appreciate it, do you think you might make the relatively tiny effort to inform your correspondents when you raise questions arising from your interaction with your correspondents on other fora?


 * No, I absolutely do not understand your concern.
 * As I pointed out above, your central argument is based on a serious misconception. The very first sentence of WP:VER says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
 * Your argument that reporting the allegations requires proving they are "true" is completely contrary to policy.
 * Note: Approximately 200 of the captives have lawyers assisting them with their writs of habeas corpus. Those lawyers, acting on their clients behalf, submitted Freedom of Information Act requests, leading to the release of the unclassified dossiers of 179 captives:
 * I have read the transcripts -- which you have not. I trust my judgement as to whether the publication of the allegations is damaging to the captives over yours.  Note: When the DoD tried to keep the identities of the captives, the allegations against them, and the transcripts from their Combatant Status Review Tribunals and Administrative Review Board hearings -- they made a strategic mistake.  They claimed they were withholding the information in order to protect the captives' privacy.  This claim was widely greeeted with derision.  And the courts over-ruled it.
 * I have read the transcripts -- which you have not. I trust my judgement as to whether the publication of the allegations is damaging to the captives over yours.  Note: When the DoD tried to keep the identities of the captives, the allegations against them, and the transcripts from their Combatant Status Review Tribunals and Administrative Review Board hearings -- they made a strategic mistake.  They claimed they were withholding the information in order to protect the captives' privacy.  This claim was widely greeeted with derision.  And the courts over-ruled it.


 * I think your blanking of the article was hasty and contrary to WP:CIV. Geo Swan 15:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As a courtesy I am informing you that I raised your concerns over on WP:AN/I. Geo Swan 18:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I replied. Just an FYI, I think forum shopping isn't considered acceptable. • Lawrence Cohen  18:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I missed this last comment until just now. I dispute that I was "forum shopping".  Geo Swan 01:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy again
When I brought up our disagreement on other fora, where you might not see it, I left you notes, as a courtesy. You thanked me. Why aren't you extending the same courtesy to me?

I saw you wrote on WP:ANI/I that you didn't see why there couldn't be a single article that covered all the captives. I would have noticed if you had asked this in a fora where I was present. There are several answers to this question. I won't go into those reasons here, now, unless I have some assurance you are going to read them and give me serious, civil replies.

I saw yesterday that you have told several other people that you were considering proposing several other articles for deletion. If you have concerns why aren't you raising them on the article's talk page? If you have concerns about my contributions why aren't you raising them on my talk page. Should I be monitoring your contribution history so I can learn what you are saying about me?

I remain extremely frustrated with you because you have not addressed the discrepancy I have pointed out between the interpretation of blp you used last week and WP:VER.

I see that User:GRBerry, another very experienced administrator, holds the opinion that blp does not require we prove allegations are true, merely to cite authoritative, verifiable sources that they were made. Geo Swan 01:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And my intention, honestly, wasn't to hide anything, which I can't do anyway. You were active on the Guide to Deletion page, one of the reasons I posted my first concerns there. My problem with the articles isn't a problem with you, you're obviously a very good editor who does amazing research. My problem still is that these people in nearly all cases are just notable for being caught, basically. A singlular event, and it's almost impossible for us to make a biographical article about them. If the article isn't about them, it can't exist in their name, at all. That is per WP:BLP and WP:BLP1E. BLP as I understand it is 100% non-negotiable, and everything else falls by the wayside. My current thinking is that eventually these will mostly need to be redirected somewhere, but I don't know where yet. I saw you say on your talk you were going to work on making them proper BLPs. Go for it, I'm not planning any drastic anything right now. You won't get a notice from me that I've sent 400 articles to AfD in one shot. Check out my user page, I have lots of stuff I want to get done now/first. I'm in no rush to do something fast. I'd rather it be right. • Lawrence Cohen  05:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thanks for your replies.


 * I strongly encourage you to give anyone whose contributions or conduct you have concerns about a heads-up if you talk about that contribution, or conduct elseswhere. I write on controversial topics, and that attracts hot-heads, serial abusers, wikistalkers, and people who are willing to use wikilawyering and deceitful abuse of the wikipedia's policies.  Several of my abusers turned out to be sockpuppets.  I made a big mistake with my first abusers.  I extended way too much benefit of the doubt to him, and was willing to assume far too much good faith.


 * I've learned that when someone talks unfairly or disparagingly about my conduct or contribution on the talk pages of third parties is one of the signals that they may soon to graduate to full-fledged abuser.


 * What's unfair about what you have said about me? Yes, you apologized for calling my contributions "hit pieces".  But, since then, you have talked about your perception that I have violated blp, without mentioning that I told you many times that I think your interpretation of blp cannot be reconciled with WP:VER.  I don't think it can be reconciled with WP:NPOV either.  That is not respectful.  And, frankly, it didn't seem you were being honest to your other correspondents either.  I am not asking you to apologize to your other correspondents.  I wouldn't want you to do that.  But I am asking you to address the concerns you have with my contributions to me, or to me first, and to refrain from talking about any issues you have with me without giving me a headsup.  As it happens I am not a regular reader of either PW:AN/I, or reliable sources noticeboard or blp noticeboard.  I only learned about your second set of comments on WP:AN/I when I wen to leave a courtesy thank you on the talk page of the administratior who temporarily userified the list.  And she was awarded a barnstar for her displomacy over the second controversy in WP:AN/I.  I only learned about it by accident.  And I am not in a position to respond to your comments, which really weren't fair to me or to my position.


 * Lawrence, would you mind returning to the afd on Zahid al Sheikh? There is something disturbing there.  Most of the participatant there -- including you, made specific comments about his article, as if he were a Guantanamo captive.  He wasn't, and my article never said he was.  Participants voiced comments about his article without actually reading it.  More particularly, it looks like you nominated it for deletion without really reading it.  I don't think that is correct behaviour Lawrence.  I think you had an obligation to read it, to read all these articles first.  And I think you should have discussed your concerns with me first, even if you thought that discussion would be pro forma.  You stated in you second set of comments in WP:AN/I that you didn't understand why there couldn't be one article that described all the captives.  Well please go take a look at User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/List of Guantanamo Bay detainees/ISN union.  Please take a good look.  I had trouble editing this list I use for my rough work.  It was too large to edit.  It takes forever to render.  It has something like 800 references.  And, if it were to be complete it would have something like 2500 to 3000 references.


 * Candidly, Geo Swan 23:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Protocols of Zion (imprints)
May I ask you to recheck your input at Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints) and make sure the situation is what you thought it was? Your explanation for your "Keep" was simply "Obviously notable". The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is definitely notable, but that is not the article that this AfD is about. This AfD is about a large cluster of articles which go into extreme detail about all different known editions and printings of the Protocols.

If you truly believe that every edition ever printed of the Protocols is obviously notable in and of itself, then you might need to explain your decision more in order to convince others. However, I believe you might have mistakenly thought this was an AfD about The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, especially since Ludvikus has more than once tampered with the AfD in ways that might mislead people about which article the AfD is actually discussing. -- 192.250.34.161 19:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A well earned reward
I noticed your many reverts and reports of vandals. Here is a little appreciation for your hard work! :) --Excirial 13:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) •  Lawrence Cohen  13:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fox News, Al Qaeda, and the CA Wildfires
Hi Lawrence, I want to comment on an edit you made a few days go to the October 2007 California wildfires article, deleting some information about Fox News' claim that Al Qaeda might have been involved. Your edit summary was: "contentious and pointless nonsense. also, the two blogs are not RS anyway, so this can't be here. source to Fox or another RS"

Let's see here... so you are saying that contentious ideas should not be included in Wikipedia? I don't think that's quite right or in accordance with policy. Are you also saying that you have some sort of right to determine what has a "point" and what doesn't? I don't think that's right either. Jimmy Wales talks about making the sum total of all human knowledge available to the people of the world, not just the things that Lawrence Cohen thinks have a "point". Regarding your claim that the sources provided were not reliable... did you even bother to click through and check out the sources? Both had video clips actually showing Fox News making the speculations about Al Qaeda starting the fires, so if you didn't trust the blogs at their word, you could have just watched those video clips. Maybe Fox News doesn't include this speculation on their website because they later found it to be embarrassing... which, in my opinion, certainly makes it interesting and "pointy". Dave Runger 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My edits
My edits are not vandalism. It is not NPOV to remove negative reviews of albums from well-known professional critics. (72.153.117.99 06:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Adding personal websites to infoboxes on album articles is spamming. • Lawrence Cohen  06:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not a personal website. It is the website of the well-known music critic Robert Christgau. I am not Mr. Christgau, and I'm not trying to spam his website. I just think that the articles should represent a world-view and not to come off as being part of some Korn fan-site. (72.153.117.99 06:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

Christgau's reviews appear are published in msn's music guide, Esquire, and the Village Voice. You seem to be removing links to his reviews in response to comments from the above IP, I would like to urge you to reconsider such a hasty approach. I would also like to warn you to stop reverting that IP's contributions as "vandalism", there's no reason not to make an effort to resolve this content dispute through conversation. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Reappeareance of H
My sympathies on the reappearance on H. I have a bad cold and so am behind in my work just now, but I am peeking in occasionally. --Pleasantville 23:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Earthenboat
Hi, I noticed you made the report Suspected sock puppets/Earthenboat and I thought you shoud know that there is another possible sockpuppet of himself as User:Newlyheads. This new user reposted the message by Earthenboat to Jimmy Wales' twice and signed the comment as Earthenboat both times. As seen here and here. I didn't know if another sockpuppet report would need to be filed for the new sockpuppet or if the username would just be added to the existing report so that explains my self revert on the report. Anyway, I'll keep on the lookout for anymore sockpuppets of this guy as it seems like he has an abundance of hands :D AngelOfSadness  talk  21:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think they all go on the same one. I re-added yours earlier. • Lawrence Cohen  21:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problemo. They look very simliar anyway. I added sockpuppet notices to the talkpage and userpage of Newlyheads just now. AngelOfSadness  talk  21:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the report have been transluded to the main suspected sockpuppets page. I know that when using Twinkle, it sometimes misses out on some steps so it leave us to carry them out manually. AngelOfSadness  talk  21:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think so, yeah. I'll let the TW guys know in case it is a bug. I just added it manually. • Lawrence Cohen  22:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Great stuff. If it is a bug hopefully the twinkle guys can figure it out. AngelOfSadness  talk  22:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
Thanks for your support with respect to my request for adminship, which successfully closed today with a count of 47 support, 1 oppose. If you ever see me doing anything that makes you less than pleased that you supported my request, I hope to hear about it from you. See you around Wikipedia! Accounting4Taste 05:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Blackwater
Hi Lawrence, I left a few ideas at Blackwater(talk). I've got tommorrow free so if you want to do something then....Ticklemygrits 16:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking of... look at: User:Lawrence Cohen/sandbox/Blackwater USA. The article isn't half bad, just in need of lots of TLC and clean up. And the order/structure sucks, to be honest. Please edit that layout test I'm doing on my sub page. Going to post it on BWUSA's talk as well. • Lawrence Cohen  16:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Lawrence, I've had a look at you're sandbox but I've had the shits all week (women, bah!). I'll have another look at it. By the way, what's going on in the talk? It's gone nuts!Ticklemygrits 13:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Having had a look at it, that's great. I wanted to get rid of a lot of the subsections, and it looks a lot better without them. the only thing I have a problem with is the duplication of the air crash in Afghanistan. I think it should be in the litigation section solely, but with information from the Iraq section.Ticklemygrits 14:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding and Torture
Thank you for your concise and methodical treatment of the "binary issue" at Talk:Waterboarding. --Uncle Ed 15:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome, Ed. The whole thing is fascinating. • Lawrence Cohen  16:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

SSP
On your SSP case, I am certain the three newer accounts are socks of each other, but what ties them to Jon Awbrey? Please explain on the SSP page. Thanks. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 00:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll answer there with where I found it. I think it was Earthboat's page. • Lawrence Cohen  05:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Simon Wessely
My recent change in the protection level of this article was only a cursory cleanup of articles that were protected forever. I set an expiration date so that it would eventually become editable again. Other then wanting to remove the indefinite protections from the protected pages list, I have no specific interest in this page. Unprotection can be requested from the admin that originally protected the article, and or on Requests for Page (Un)Protections. Thank you, — xaosflux  <sup style="color:#00FF00;">Talk  00:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I like your page
How did you do it, I could really use someones help. Oh- Intro.... My name is Rianon Burnet and I am a new addition. I could really use some help on starting my page. I did something but nothing has yet popped up, it was about an hour ago. Well sorry back to intro, I'm 21 turning 22 in about two months next wednesday YEAH!!!!!!!!! Well I really hope that you can help me. Thank you so much and again, Really cool page :)

--Rianon 20:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I didn't think it was anything that pretty... I just arranged it like a normal Wikipedia page, and copied that information box template from some other user's page. I can't recall whose, now, unfortunately. Its all over the place. If you want, you can just copy my page and reformat it and change the text. • Lawrence Cohen  20:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for...
...catching this. I wouldn't have noticed otherwise. :) Cheers (and good job, you're beating me to quite a few reversions), Master of Puppets Care to share?  05:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Anytime, and thanks! Race you to the end. • Lawrence Cohen  05:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What end? Unless you've somehow discovered how to stem the flow of immature vandals wrecking this great project...
 * First one to 10000 edits wins! :D Cheers, Master of Puppets Care to share?  05:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, alas for being able to send discouraging electric discharge via the Internet. • Lawrence Cohen  05:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, anyway, to my main question; what tools do you use to revert? Master of Puppets Care to share?  05:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh! The CVU guys had recommended I saw the Lupin filter tool for RC, and I do the reversions from that on Firefox with Twinkle. • Lawrence Cohen  05:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I just use Lupin's complete anti-vandal tool, and Twinkle for more complex reverts. All we need to work on now is making some sort of computer monitor that can project lightning at the user and donate it to vandals. Master of Puppets Care to share?  05:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage and giving the IP address the last and final warning because I would of gave him a second warning probably causing him/her to get more frustrated and vandalize more. And by the way how do you install Twinkle? I don't really understand it. LADodgersAngelsfan 06:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Twinkle was easy to install. Go to:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LADodgersAngelsfan/monobook.js
 * Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lawrence_Cohen/monobook.js
 * To get just twinkle, you really need to only add the  importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkle.js');  bit of code.
 * If you want you can copy my whole file over. I have a couple of useful tools I picked up. Once you save it, just do a Control-F5 on your browser to force a reload. That should go it. • Lawrence Cohen  06:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

About User:210.17.218.44
Um, actually sadly I don't think he'll be able to er even read the warnings...He did this at a computer lab at my school, I was doing this buddy program thingy with 1st graders (he is 7 years old) And so he just figured out how to use Wikipedia, and I told him not to..but..And by the time the guys sent the vandalism messages to his talk page, he was at home, and it got sent to the computer lab's IP...and well, there's not much I can say...all this damage is my fault because I just watched in horror and I could have done something, but what can I do to a 7 year old kid and not make him cry or whatever? Anyway, the point is that he didn't exactly recieve the 'last chance' warnings, let alone if he did he wouldn't understand. I'll try and talk to him though. Thanks for sending the message. Qsung 14:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for any confusion. Just remind him to not vandalize and to play nice with the encyclopedia. :) • Lawrence Cohen  14:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

National Fatherhood Initiative
Sorry about that, I was just trying to help clean up what you left, not undo what you did.
 * Ah, ok. No worries. Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen  18:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Thank you for the barnstar, glad to be of service! • Lawrence Cohen  03:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I gave you a barnstar because you reverted vandalism on my WikiFriend's userpage. NHRHS2010  talk  17:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:ITN/C
This edit had the unfortunate side effect of making my comments appear to apply to Barry Bonds, which then makes it look like there are no objections to listing the Balibo story. Please be very careful when modifying others' comments. <font color="#00F">&mdash;dgies tc 17:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I accidentally pushed yours down, my apologies. • Lawrence Cohen  18:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

no problem
Hello, no problem. -- Kyok o  00:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Gun laws in the United States (by state)
Greetings, Lawrence Cohen. You recently added an "original research" tag to "Gun laws in the United States (by state)". I have started a section in the article's talk page to discuss that. Feel free to join in, at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state). — Mudwater 01:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll reply there. • Lawrence Cohen  02:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews interviews
You may be interested in commenting at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Cool Hand Luke 21:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I just posted a new section; thanks for the heads up. • Lawrence Cohen  22:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

School consensus
I've created a project page: SCHOOLCONSENSUS, because of a village pump proposal. I thought you'd might be interested in participating. --victor falk 06:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good idea. I'll watchlist it, thanks. • Lawrence Cohen  06:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Just wanted to say thanks for supporting me! Please find your thank you card here, should you wish to see it. I'm honored to have received your support. All the best, ~ Eliz 81 <sup style="color:#1E90FF;">(C)  21:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. • Lawrence Cohen  22:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD
You might want to revisit Articles for deletion/Diego antigen system which you recently nominated.DGG (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just saw this, thanks, I've updated it. • Lawrence Cohen  22:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Hi, Lawrence, I've seen you around the Durova controversy and am wondering how you are doing? We haven't spoken lately. I hope you are doing well. I've been working on gamma ray burst and notice that you also have an interest in astronomy. - Jehochman Talk 00:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good, on this end. I saw that situation from ANI and your talk page. Its a bit of a mess and I hope you make it out alright, from that. No offense, but from reading that backlog of history it looks like you may have been a little too quick on the draw on a couple of things, but thats it. Doing well enough, otherwise, on my end. I think I need to remove a bunch of the Wikipedia space pages from my watchlist so that I can get back to writing more instead of following all these threads that seem to move in every direction. How goes it with you, the current mess aside? Just saw your updated edit. If you need help on it with digging up sources let me know? I've been wanting to get more into this articles--following that side of science is an old hobby. • Lawrence Cohen  00:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD
Just wanted to let you know I've responded to your comment at Articles for deletion/Angelica Mandy. Cheers, Fbv65 e del — t — c // 04:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I replied myself again. • Lawrence Cohen  06:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Confusing
Hi, I wonder why you changed the instructions and altered several people's signatures at my user talk. That looked unhelpful so I've reverted the post. Durova Charge! 20:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What the heck? I have -no- idea what happened there. What is all that garbage text? I just copy/pasted the same message to yourself, !!, and Giano. • Lawrence Cohen  20:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's a Wiki-glitch. I saw something similar here. --Pleasantville (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe from that upgrade they just rolled back, I guess. • Lawrence Cohen  20:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strange things happen. I didn't know what to think when I saw it.  Glad it's just a software issue that's getting addressed.  Best,  Durova Charge! 21:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Giano box
Of course not. :) KTC (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My sig on some votes - I know
I just realized the "I SUPPORT GIANO" was still in my first few, I removed that from signature as it's not appropriate for voting. I realized it after I had voted. • Lawrence Cohen  00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Love the pictures
I like your page and all your pictures. Hope to hear from you, Introduction: My name is Rianon Burnet and I'm 21 from the south. Thanks and keep in touch.

Rianon 17:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Rianon (Talk)
 * Hello. Happy editing. • Lawrence Cohen  18:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom Elections
Hi Lawrence, I noticed that you voted against my arbitration candidacy on the basis of "concerns about time" and because I'm a checkuser ombudperson. I'm a bit confused about this, because I'd already stated in my candidate statement that I would happily resign as an ombudsperson if people felt that it would be a conflict of interest. I'm also bewildered about where these "concerns about time" that a couple of people have raised come from - I'd answered every single question put to me as of the time I went to bed last night. Rebecca 22:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Rebecca... I'd be willing to revise my vote, and will do that now. I hadn't seen your revised statement and update. The old timer in me, I get worried about police policing themselves, that sort of thing. Cheers! Lawrence Cohen  23:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! Rebecca 23:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Jeeny map edit
It was an error. She later reverted herself. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I know. I was just making clear that its unacceptable per BLP since there seemed to be discussion that in some roundabout ways it was alright. I posted again. Lawrence Cohen  16:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I understand that there are BLP concerns with the Smoking Gun because the reports contain the address - this is not the same thing as the reports consisting of nothing but addresses - they are primary source documents explaining the discovery of Megan Meier's fatally injured body, the subsequent vandalism of the Drew home, etc. I can understand excluding the link for now due to BLP, but we should see if the Drews stay where they are. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Something you might be interested in reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy&curid=3777280&diff=175946870&oldid=175803168 --Pleasantville (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks... I'll watchlist and follow it, wherever it goes, but after just trying to keep up with all the other insanity the past month I want to try to get at least half my free time on articles. We still need to get the main Blackwater to FA, fork it a couple times, and get the children to GA, remember? :) Lawrence Cohen  16:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And I've got this Year's best Fantasy due 12/1/07. Eeek. --Pleasantville (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Angela Beesley
I hope this satisfies your concerns? Durova Charge! 20:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure does, thank you. I've revised to delete. I still think she is notable enough, but giving BLPs who aren't bulletproof notable and/or public personalities a chance to be removed probably doesn't hurt. Lawrence Cohen  21:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

For all your hard work

 * Thank you! I hope we can get it all resolved, in the end... Lawrence Cohen  23:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

sometimes you should trust your inner lizard
just sayin... Tvoz | talk 23:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee Merge Proposal
Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here [] Jmegill (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of MessageLabs
A tag has been placed on MessageLabs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Anubis Godfather T© 21:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article should be deleted, then please place  on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article.  Anubis Godfather T© 21:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy_deletions says: Any user who is not the creator of a page may remove a speedy tag from it. The creator may not do this. A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead add to the page, and explain the rationale on the page's discussion page.

So please stop it.  Anubis Godfather T© 22:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Angela Beesley
I hope this addresses your concerns. Although I mentored Mercury, I rarely close site discussions and he's always been very bold and independent about that. If I had any voice in this closure I would rather have seen the article kept by someone who had no association with me, just to avoid more drama. But Mercury didn't consult with me. I didn't know until after it happened so I posted as soon as I found out to discourage surmises. Then I pledged to Doc Glasgow to stay out of the DRV. If you have any other doubts I'll be happy to address them here. Best regards, Durova Charge! 03:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Version
I disliked that version for the reasons I outlined (all of which were not addressed). Badagnani (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Crossposting
Yeah, sometimes the folks who have this watchlisted don't notice it for a few days, I've had to crosspost before, sometimes twice. Well written message by the way. :) Regards, <b style="color:#8b7b8b;font-family:Verdana">M<font color="#000">ercury </b> 18:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mercury. And seriously, no hard feelings on my side over the brouhaha that's been rolling and ongoing. I got pulled in from something someone posted on Jehochman's talk page, we'd worked on a variety of things here and there before he got sysop. You honestly I think did the best you could at the time given all the weird circumstances. I'm sorry if I came across as heated towards you a couple of times. I honestly did not mean to. Lawrence Cohen  18:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Editing can sometimes get heated, some folks are even calling for my recall. But I think once some times passes, cooler heads will prevail.  Its really a good project overall.  Regards, <b style="color:#8b7b8b;font-family:Verdana">M<font color="#000">ercury </b> 18:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just posted on the recall page. Whats your condition? Stand down if endorsed, or go for a reconfirmation RFA? You should do the RFA if it gets endorsed. Lawrence Cohen  19:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure yet to be honest. <b style="color:#8b7b8b;font-family:Verdana">M<font color="#000">ercury </b> 19:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The RFA will at least be sure to get a lot of eyes on things, and I'd Support if so. Or Object, I suppose is accurate, to keep you. Lawrence Cohen  19:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your question
For BLP biographies, see the "dead trees standard" as articulated in my posts. It's my proposed interpretation, not actual guideline or policy, but I'm not aware of any definitive counterproposal. Use common sense hasn't worked very well because this is the kind of subject where reasonable people disagree. Durova Charge! 20:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think a dead trees standard is workable, though. The problem is we have infinite trees here, and to apply that standard would eliminate hundreds if not thousands of perfectly valid and legitimate articles. It's a good idea, and is appealing in it's wording, but it implies something that I don't think would ever get support. I don't know that I could support it as a standard, at any rate, unfortunately.


 * Would every sitting current member of the United States Congress rate an article by that standard?
 * Would every previous member of the United States Congress rate an article?
 * Would every sitting current member of the United States Senate rate an article by that standard?
 * Would every previous member of the United States Senate rate an article?
 * Would every member, past and present, of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff rate an article?
 * Would every musician that has had a #1 charted hit rate an article?
 * Would every notable actor rate an article?


 * That's just off the top of my head, and I can see a significant number of articles just there being deleted. The tricky problem is that threshold, isn't it? Dead trees is just incredibly, incredibly high. Lawrence Cohen  20:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that this standard includes specialty encyclopedias and applies only to opt-out requests. So, in all likelihood, just about all of the people you list would stay whether they liked their Wikipedia biographies or not.  There are encyclopedias of politics, encyclopedias of music, etc.  As I stated at the Angela Beesley nomination, I'm thinking not so much of Sting as a bass player who recorded a few songs with Sting in an otherwise uneventful career.  That bassist's identity would be verifiable through the recording credits and that person would probably satisfy WP:MUSIC, but if he decided he'd rather not be here it wouldn't be hard to merge the relevant information elsewhere and redirect or delete the page.  Durova Charge! 21:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Durova's approach makes sense as a factor to consider, but I am not sure I like it as a bright line test. Following that guideline, for example, might suggest that we cannot write on Abu Zubaydah.  Following dead tree standards puts wikipedia BEHIND other encyclopedias when, part of the strength here is being able to lead and be out front and current. --Blue Tie (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the policy work
I do not know if we stand in agreement on a solution to the problems set forward by the Durova case and WP:PRIVATE, but I value your efforts to bring clarity to the whole thing. And I thought Raul's comments about using copyright as a basis is dead on right -- as are his concerns in both directions regarding the publication of private communications. His views are insightful and your efforts are appreciated. --Blue Tie (talk) 09:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstars for all - you get another since you worked twice as hard as the rest of us

 * Thank you! Lawrence Cohen  21:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

...or maybe even three times as hard...

 * I dunno about three times. It just seemed like pushing and prodding would do the trick eventually. :) Lawrence Cohen  21:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding
Thanks for the note, if you need anything let me know. — xaosflux  <sup style="color:#00FF00;">Talk  04:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deleting images
Thanks for your efforts to help clean up the Image namespace. It certainly needs it. However, please try to be careful when tagging images with Twinkle. You recently tagged a handful of images under WP:CSD I6, but none of those images had been tagged as nrd (for no rationale) for the requisite amount of time. Instead those images should be tagged with the NRD template, and the uploader warned. Someone else will come through and clear the backlog. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'll fix that. Lawrence Cohen  14:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Mercenary
Tagging Blackwater as a mercenary outfit in the infobox is extremely POV. They are not considered mecenary under Geneva or by the UN. They are a private contractor that is on U.S. Government contract. They supply the men, the U.S. pays the bill. Utilizing your standards, I am a mercenary since I signed a contract and am payed by the U.S. to conduct warfare or provide security. The job of Blackwater is to provide State Department Security, and as all of us who have been in these hostile nations understand, it means taking and giving fire from time to time. However, that tid bit of a fact does not make you a mercenary. Did they hire Chileans, if so, that still does not make them mercenary. Less than 10% are foreign personnel and my understanding is those guys are in strictly support roles not direct security roles. The fact you have foreign nationals does not make you a mercenary group. If that is the case, then once again the U.S. Army is a huge fucking mercenary group since we have a number of enlisted soldiers in our ranks that are not U.S. citizens. I.E. on contract with the government and payed by the government, no different than a Blackwater op. Also, if this is the case with Blackwater, then you guys need to get your happy asses over to the every other private contractor site that conducts business with the U.S. Government and start labelling them accordingly. It can't be one without the other. For a better definition of mercenary, please look up the French Foreign Legion. That is a mercenary. Paid by a government other than your own to conduct warfare for that said government.

Do I have a problem with you placing the fact that they have been called mercenaries by sources on the page? No, as long as you give the other side of the debate and keep it extremly NPOV. However, placing it in the infobox basically is extremely POV in that it basically writes off Blackwater as mercenary and nothing else. It closes the debate and anyone who does not read the article to understand where the debate lies looks at that infobox and immediatley their understanding of Blackwater is that they are mercenary, when in fact they are not and if they are it is highly debatable. This is an excellent reason that Wikipedia is not relied on as a viable source of information when writing papers and conducting research. Wikipedia is not to be utilized to push a point of view politically, religiously, etc. It should be utilized to report what something is from both points of view and give equal time to those views. However, those views should be held in the body of the article, not in the infobox. Mustang Six  Zero  15:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your thoughtful (if blunt) response. If memory serves that was initially placed by someone else. I will start a discussion later today on the talk page, over whether a corporate infobox should reflect the company's assertation of what their role, market, and nature is, or the sum total of that place external verifiable sources. I'm certainly not going to edit war over anything right now. Lawrence Cohen  15:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi there! Thanks very much for your support on my recent RfA, which was successful. I appreciate your comments and participation, and intend to use the tools carefully and for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Thanks again! Tony Fox (arf!) 06:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

POV problems
For a guy who gets barnstars for NPOV solutions, you sure made an about face by adding a whole lot of non-reliable, POV pushing sources to the List of massacres‎ article. No doubt you thought you were correcting an injustice. However, the end result is that this article now has several rather non-neutral sources supporting a contested event, and you are the editor of record for these additions. Rklawton (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no stake or interest in that article; I simply saw it from the ANI thread, and wouldn't revert there anyway. I undid a revision that you did, which you were not entitled to do. You had completely inappropriately blocked Sarah777 with your admin tools to get an immediate advantage in a content conflict, as was noted on the ANI thread by many people. Your last edit had no entitlement to stand from how I read the situation, so I put it back to the status quo and left it. As I wrote in the summary talk it out. Being an admin gives you no free passes to control content and your editorial voice has the same weight as mine or Sarah's or Alison's. Sorry for the trouble. Lawrence Cohen  15:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Marshall Law (producer)
Thanks for your note. I'm not entirely sure why I created the page back in July, but it wasn't because I had a personal interest in it; the edit summary says something about disambiguation and I expect it had something to do with the remainder of a disambiguation after one page was deleted. Feel free to speedy it if you're so inclined, I have no interest in the page and will go to the AfD and say so. Accounting4Taste: talk 15:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, I think I found it just hitting Random article yesterday morning. It may end up closed early for the AfD, but who knows. Thanks! Lawrence Cohen  15:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding
I much prefer your former version to the current version. I do not think it is perfect but I think it is MUCH better than what we have now.--Blue Tie (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Your editing and positions are weird. Apparently, thinking that your version is good, is an extreme minority viewpoint. I do not grasp that and I have never seen an editor work against themselves that way!  Very unusual!  I must admit, I do not understand you at all. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I supported mostly the modified version I had put up right after protection, here. That version had wide support, was completely backed up by a consensus of sources and notable opinions and viewpoints that were all policy-compliant, and was politically neutral. The fact that people seem to be actively discrediting and devaluing sources based on personal political ideologies is offensive to me. It's like laughing in the face of NPOV, by trying to cite NPOV as a bludgeon against itself! Lawrence Cohen  16:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yet, oddly, you are siding aggressively with the people who are doing the very thing you find offensive. Totally odd. You may be of the opinion that I have discredited or devalued sources inappropriately.  I have not done that. If you think so, find one instance.  On the other hand that is exactly what has happened to all the sources I listed.  I have a feeling you are very biased on this matter.  My only bias is on the side of wikipedia.  I almost never give my personal views but I find myself now in a position where I must.  So here goes: I consider waterboarding to be torture and illegal.  But I do not believe that my view is universal. I believe it is disputed.  And when things are disputed wikipedia must not take sides.  So, my ONLY agenda is to be in harmony with wikipedia standards.  I have no political, religious or other agenda.  I am trying to be consistent and unbiased.  As far as I can tell you are also consistent but biased. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My bias is simply I want consensus to stand, and I'm concerned that views which are remotely related to the US Government or domestic to the US government are being given a more prominent voice and weight than other sources, or foreign sources (see Randy's various comments, on reliable sources noticeboard and waterboarding talk archives for examples). In any event, I have quite a few family members coming from out of town to join us in our house in the next 90 minutes, so will have little time for anything for a few days. I think I'll take a break from the article for a few days afterwards as well, at least. My time on here is getting totally consumed by defending NPOV and stopping undue weight and fringe views from creeping in on there, but others can deal with it for a little while. I need to actually write some content, not just hold off political nonsense. You've been arguing from a policy standpoint generally, rather than political ideologies and personal opinions, at least, and I thank you for that. Merry Christmas. Lawrence Cohen  17:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Your desire to let consensus stand, contrary to wikipedia policy is itself contrary to wikipedia policy. See WP:CON. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Tie (talk • contribs) 01:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're wrong, unfortunately. If people can't get it focused on that talk page, without useless trolling like "the United Nations sucks" I'll have to begin steps for some sort of mediation, enforced or otherwise, to settled it. Lawrence Cohen  01:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Please note that the user's username is "Shibumi," not "Shibuni." Badagnani (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I seem to horrible with name spelling lately. The behavior there makes zero sense to me--the page has turned from civil productive discussion to partisan bickering and edit warring. The 'not torture' individuals seem to be going against policies on sourcing; you'd think they'd want to not have this exposed to more eyes. The further up the food chain it goes the more people will see the talk page, and the more will come in to support policies. Why escalate things like this? No sense. Lawrence Cohen  20:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Have fun--I'm not sure I'm up to the task of repairing the archives, as it's become quite complex. Wouldn't it have just been easier to allow the bot to archive the talk page (as the talk page states, at the top)? Badagnani (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed it all now, and set the bot to 14 days for the time being. The sources section will roll off unless updated soon, FYI. This page has become such a time sink... Lawrence Cohen  20:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The term "filibuster" is quite accurate, yes. But no WP article, on any subject, should be allowed to become a tool of ideology or fringe opinion. Badagnani (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have deleted two things accidentally, in this edit. Badagnani (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you mind fixing it? Literally out the door to the airport now. Happy holidays! Lawrence Cohen  01:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Blackwater Photo Request
Hello - I noticed that you requested a photo on the WP North Carolina talk page. I just wanted to direct you to Requested_pictures If you have not already gone there yet! Cheers Rob110178 (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Blackwater
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I looked over the Blackwater article and submitted my comments to the peer review page. Let me know if you are trying to get this up to GA or FA status and I might lend a hand. Remember (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 3
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a good New Year, --Elonka 21:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

TTN History
You seem new to the controversy, so I will fill you in on the background as neutrally as I can (for the record, I support him). TTN does post merge notices on articles, tags them as needing improvement, and that kind of advance notice. He doesn't tend to follow up quickly. He comes back a few months later, and, if no action has been taken to correct the problem, he redirects the article. He tends to do this to hundreds of articles per day, and has been at it for quite some time. His supporters (like me), point out that he is objectively over 99% accurate in his selection of problem articles, and no one can come up with policy-based objections to any individual redirect. Detractors tend to focus on his brief, non-interactive style of doing it, and the sheer volume of his redirection activities. Supporters point at that same volume as an indicator of the massive amount of this stuff that is in Wikipedia, and that no heavy discussion based approach would allow him to achieve the necessary speed and efficiency.Kww (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Rant
Hi Lawrence - I reinstated the section on Edwards' talk because I wanted to reply to it. Maybe I missed something, but in my view there really is nothing in there that hasn't been discussed on Talk before, so to remove it I think may add fuel to the fire. But that's just my opinion, and as I said, maybe I missed something in his comments that are a problem. Tvoz | talk 08:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops - seems Anastrophe reinstated it while I was editing and I didn't even realize that. There may be a BLP point, but I think A. is right that if so the whole page should likely go into the archives - I'm not really sure either. Tvoz | talk 08:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thought of the Day
The more vocally, and frequently, you have to defend your point, stance, or position, the more likely it is your point, stance, or position is either without value for Wikipedia or is not supported by policy. If your point, stance, or position had legs, why would you have to defend it feverishly? Lawrence Cohen 15:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A bad faith attack
I am shocked, dismayed and offended at this edit. You may not agree with me, but that does not entitle you to attack me -- Though I do not understand you or agree with you sometimes, up to this point I have had nothing but respect for you and I think I have treated you kindly. I am amazed that you would with obvious forethought, blast through WP:AGF and go right into violation of WP:NPA. I am hoping it was a momentary lapse.--Blue Tie (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. You won't see me on that article for the time being. Lawrence Cohen  05:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"tell him about the twinkie"
I just want to say that: That's a big Twinkie. But still, if it were listed as a project for everyone to get behind, I bet with all the editors here it could get knocked down 1000~ a day, easy. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC) on the admin noticeboard made me laugh. A quote that I don't see very often. Good movie too.--Rockfang (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI thread
Where? Dr Tobias Funke (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Permanent links
You don't need to wait for threads to archive. You can click the "permanent link" menu item in the left column of any page. The copy the section link from the TOC. This will generate a permanent link to the current version of the page. Such links are useful for ArbCom evidence. See Complete diff and link guide. Jehochman Talk 05:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I'll fix it. Lawrence Cohen  05:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Lawrence Cohen  22:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

About weird Google summaries
It's not limited to biographies. See this Google search for an example of this taking place on a non-bio article. Perhaps this is done on an article-by-article basis by the developers; if so, it really should be exposed to end users. <b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b> 08:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked on the admin board if this is something we should bring to the devs. Lawrence Cohen  14:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * How did I miss this? I look forward to your Presidency, and watch out for those motorcades near buildings with books. Lawrence Cohen  07:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A request
I would like an opportunity to address Horologium's evidence about me on the Bluemarine RFAr. I'm not asking for your support or defense, but your advice on how and where to respond in the context of the RFAr. Any help would be appreciated. Aatombomb (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I enabled it. Aatombomb (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops. Now it's enabled. Sorry! Aatombomb (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Should I assume you are not interested in discussing this? Aatombomb (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, hadn't a chance to reply. Very soon! Lawrence Cohen  23:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! Aatombomb (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Professor
I've been chatting with my friend the professor. He understands exactly what happened. You need not feel any stress about that situation. The administrators will deal with that page. Whatever you do, don't get involved in edit warring. If somebody does a POV push, you may revert once using a civil edit summary and then place a neutral comment on the talk page explaining why you reverted and what changes you would be willing to accept. Don't revert more than once or get snarky. I will give this same advice to any other editor who is willing to hear from me. Jehochman Talk 06:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(fold)
I'm tossing in my hand on the RFAr. The block on Sanchez was it. I've expended a great deal of effort on that article, but to have him do something as manifestly stupid as to violate his clearly and narrowly tailored unblock to wade into the waterboarding debate during an arbitration case cannot be justified, defended, or excused. I will continue to watch the RFAr, and will respond if appropriate, but I will not be adding any more to it.  Horologium  (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That was a very foolish action on his part. Still not as bad as the endless attacks on gays, which trumps all in the bad and/or evil side of things, since intolerance is horrendous. I don't think it will end well. Lawrence Cohen  14:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As I have noted elsewhere, his attacks on gays are not acceptable, but (I know this sounds childish) "they started it". AFAICT, Sanchez never denounced gay activists for being gay until they outed him. He clearly was out to bash left-wingers, but not specifically those who were gay. He was subjected to a tremendous amount of abuse by gay bloggers, which I think he compounded with his nasty and bigoted insults, but he wasn't the one who started the fight. What he does not seem to realize is that not everyone who is gay is a left-wing "BDS" sufferer out to ruin him. Even some gay editors who are left-of-center are not trying to smear him; WjBscribe has clearly stated that he doesn't agree Sanchez's politics, yet he has been very diligent in removing BLP violations, because it is the right thing to do. For that, he has been subjected to abuse by both Sanchez detractors and by Sanchez himself (with all of the nonsense about banning gay editors from the article).
 * Part of the reason I have more a problem with his latest action is my focus on process; I tend to think in concrete terms, and the whole "sticks-and-stones" bit doesn't bother me nearly as much as a clear violation of explicit directions to edit in only three places (which were specifically identified). That is something that is not open to interpretation. 20 years in the military helped me to develop a worldview that eliminates a lot of abstraction, which can be useful in some cases and an hindrance in others. I consider it relevant, which is why I note the background on my userpage.  Horologium  (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

storm
Moved to Talk:Storm_botnet, replied there. Lawrence Cohen 18:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

re Talk:Waterboarding
My apologies - it was an accident due to an edit conflict. WaltonOne 20:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration
Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, <font color="#B38F00">henrik •<font color="#AFA29F">talk  11:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw it and posted. Thanks Henrik. Lawrence Cohen  20:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually..
regarding your edits here, arbitration committee generally exempts anything in affected user's userspace (i.e. he's allowed to edit his own user page as well as any subpage he may have) - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 20:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok, I didn't know that. Sorry! Should I post a correction or will you? Lawrence Cohen  20:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You can :D - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 20:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Got it, all set! Lawrence Cohen  20:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bosch IP
No, I meant other unrelated users editing through that gateway. I'll make it clearer.  BLACK KITE  00:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Check your email :)  BLACK KITE  00:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your summary
Your summary seems quite astute, though it would be better to have harder evidence regarding the purported connections between the various IPs and usernames you single out. I'm convinced we will get to the bottom of this (specifically single users presenting themselves as multiple users) though the worst thing is, we shouldn't have had to, if all participants had adhered to WP policy in the first place. Badagnani (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Will you please not do Requests for rollback/Vote?
Wikipedia is not a democracy, not giving people a chance to discuss is bad, you've missed the point of the ArbCom which is to prevent similar issues from happening in future and you can't sum up everyone's feelings about both allowing rollback and/or the process itself into a few neat headings. I can't help but think this is a terrible idea and fundamentally goes against the "wiki" in Wikipedia and the idea of consensus. -Halo (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We voted on the main page apparently, and 3rr. Were there no problems with that? What else is going to make everyone shut up and go back to writing articles? Lawrence Cohen  03:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I laud your initiative. Regards, Hús  ö  nd  03:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Lawrence Cohen  06:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The latest "attack"?
-- <strong style="color:#fff;background:#DC143C;border:1px solid #000">ALLSTAR <strong style="color:#FFF;background:#0F4D92;border:1px solid #000"> echo 05:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My response. Lawrence Cohen  06:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom
Look, I'm dropping out of this now. They win. But you need to face the fact that arbcom will not touch this issue, or any poll, or anything else with a barge poll. Those that wish to debate this are really on their own. There's no remedy or settlement coming to the rescue.--Docg 14:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd oblige. O:-)
. As requested. O:-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Frenchmanweeps1940.ogg|200px]]
 * Lawrence Cohen 22:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Castle Romeo.jpg|200px|A pretty thing to look at, a somewhat less pretty thing to be subjected to.]] [[Image:White_Cat_in_need_of_Wikilove.jpg|200px|more wikilove, coming right up!]]
 * Wow! After obliging, I dutifully went to look at the page in question. Holy moly! If I had known about the whole asploding thing, I wouldn't have teased you. Did I manage to cheer you up a bit anyway? ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, look at my contributions today in user space and project space. :) Yes, it did cheer me up, it's been a bit of a downer of a day. I'd rather be working more on this! Lawrence Cohen  22:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like fun! Wish I knew more about soviet movies :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

3rr or vandalism
I am assuming good faith in that you must have confused User:Jimbo Wales with Jimmy Wales as I assume you were not supporting a vandal vandalising somebody's user page on this project, if I thought you were further action in order to revoke your editing priviliges would be 100% necessary as the idea of trying to frighten people from reverting user page vandalism is completely unacceptable. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, why would I want to frighten people out of doing vandal patrol? Look at my user page boxes, I do RC myself. :) I think the whole thing was a big misunderstanding, to be honest. Sorry for any trouble. Lawrence Cohen  00:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, I am absolutely willing to assume good faith from you. God knows I was acting in a good faith myself. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny 16:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Slighly altered the format, please check if you agree. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 18:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I really can't wait till its over
For Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding and the IRC RFAR to end, so that I can go through and purge my watchlist of 99% of the Wikipedia: stuff on it and just write articles. Lawrence Cohen 17:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez AfD
Would you mind if I deleted our discussion about 2nd/3rd nomination? Since you've taken care of it now, I'd rather remove that from what I expect will be a very long page soon. If you'd rather it remain for any reason, I won't quarrel about it though. <font color="#32127A">Aleta <font color="#990066">(Sing)  22:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I'll do it. Lawrence Cohen  22:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! <font color="#32127A">Aleta <font color="#990066">(Sing)  22:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you expand on this one "WP:BLP does not apply to editors, but WP:NPA and WP:HARASS do. Editors who happen to have articles on them are no different than other editors for policy application." ? I'm not quite sure what you mean exactly by saying "Wp:BLP does not apply to editors".  What does this mean?  Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that BLP applies everywhere, to protect identifiable living people. Editors are covered by other policies, like NPA. I think it could be dangerous to apply BLP to editors, as it would make it difficult to impossible to detail impropriety, issues, or concerns about editors in dispute resolution. My take then is that Sanchez, as an editor, has no BLP protection, but as the subject he does. It's very gray, but I would oppose saying BLP applies to editors at any time. It would make DR a nightmare and give editors with articles extra special rights that no other editors had, even ones who edit under their real names (but may not have a Wikipedia article). Lawrence Cohen  06:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay let me see if I'm understanding you by an example. If for example, some editor states in some case that "I was there in Korea and I saw the suffering in 1959", and let's say that editor also has a biography here.  Now if we, as journalists, uncover facts that the person was actually in the seventh grade living in Kansas, or an accountant living in New Jersey at the time, we *could* include those details in a counter-argument against the editor's position, without necessarily needing to show that we are satisfying BLP as we're not also including those details in the biography.  Whoa, that's a big run-on sentence. Is *that* the sort of thing you're talking about when you say that editors aren't protected by BLP? Wjhonson (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
John Carter (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: ArbCom clarification on Free Republic
Hello there. Last night, you deleted an entire section of evidence in an ArbCom clarification, claiming that personal information had been disclosed. If that was your concern, removing two links and leaving a note on my User Talk page would have been sufficient. Please restore that section of evidence with the diffs from here at Wikipedia, and remove the two links if you insist. Thanks. Samurai Commuter (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please bring this up on the RFAR page, in the "harassment" subsection under Free Republic that I created. Thank you. Lawrence Cohen  19:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just restore my ArbCom evidence section, and leave out the links you find troublesome? Unless you have some other objection, I'd rather not go to the trouble of compiling and posting it again. This evidence includes several diffs from right here at Wikipedia. I don't understand what you might find objectionable about them. Please explain. I'd like to work this out with you so that you won't delete my ArbCom evidence in the future. Thank you. Samurai Commuter (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please ask there. I have no further comment on this page, and won't reply again. You're looking for this section. Lawrence Cohen  19:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Massive display of clue
!!!

-- :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It just seemed to make sense. Lawrence Cohen  21:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you! Lawrence Cohen  14:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
My request for adminship was successful at 64/1/2! Many thanks for your participation and I will endeavor to meet your expectations. Cheers, <font face="Verdana"> Sephiroth BCR ( Converse ) 09:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

mfd
I stuck the MFD tag on for you. I make no assessment (other than my vote) as to whether the action is valid/likely to carry or not, but it deserves a community hearing at least. Orderinchaos 16:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The whole thing is just disturbing. Lawrence Cohen  16:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding, military, and ADHD
I am sorry that I misunderstood your reference. I responded first as one of Uncle Sam's Misguided Chidren, before I'd even read the reference. Then, the coincidence of your reference following so closely to my statement about ADHD, coupled with your campaign about checking up on people, and the sensitivity I have about invisible handicaps, led me to what I now believe was an incorrect conclusion. I apologise. htom (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Everyone has been on edge because of that damned article. It's alright. And I really haven't done any kind of a campaign--all the evidence is really focused on a very specific tiny group of editors, with an extremely similar voice, similar language, and amazingly similar geographic IP addresses as a known troublemaker. They're not even 1/4 of the "not or maybe not torture" side of the debate. Like yourself, BQZ, Randy, Walton, et al. Before that little subset of Illinois users showed up, to be absolute frank, the discussion on water boarding was wonderfully civil and engaging. Now that the Illinois users have backed off, and stopped going in to push every button imaginable, it's becoming that way again. BQZ can be a bit... overly strident and righteous in tone, but like I said, I chalk that up to general stress from all this. Lawrence Cohen  21:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal concerns
I don't want to start a talk page war here, but your concerns about the mentioning of the "Australian Party Boy's" name on wikipedia are incorrect. His name can only not be mentioned when the topic is regarding the charges that have been laid against him, as in this example which was posted on January 17, 2008 - 5:10AM. However, the press, Austrlian citizens and certainly members of the international community are quite within there rights to discuss him, his story and everything except his charges and mention his name, as these examples show: I have blotted out his name on your talk page purly out of respect for you feelings, which you are quite welcome to on this page. But, they should not extend to the rest of wikipedia when it is so plainly obvious that your have been mis-informed about the law. This has not meant to be some kind of personal attack, but rather an education based on evidence. Fosnez (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why party boy C***y is a genius - January 17, 2008 01:20pm
 * Web starts to turn on party boy C***y D*****y - January 17, 2008 11:40am