User talk:OpenFuture/Archive1

Say something!

Shock Doctrine
I'm already sorry I got involved with talking about that review of The Shock Doctrine. I'm not very invested in that article. I haven't read the book and don't particularly plan to. I know the article's a POV honeypot that I don't really want to mess with. So, good luck with your edits. I better step out before the wikistress hits me. C RETOG 8(t/c) 20:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear about your wikistress. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The Durutti Column
I've reverted back. In british english bands are considered to be collective plural groups so 'are' is correct. US english considers them to be singular entities. Therefore we use "Bon Jovi is" but "Def Leppard are" constructions - it's based on the origin of the group in question. Exxolon (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Even when the band is in actual fact a one person project? Weirdos! :) --OpenFuture (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Naomi Klein
I finally posted the promised data, wont be going back to that site, thanks again for the discussion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Russia's 1993 crisis
Hi, I noticed that you've been doing a great job trying to balance this article. I also plan to develop this article, because it is quite an important subject. As of now, the article has too few references and seems too one-sided to my eye. In fact, the corresponding article in ru.wiki is much more informative (though even more POVed). Regards, --Miacek (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Spacing change?
WTF? It's strange that you removed the more readable layout of some of the citations in the Naomi Klein article, while making no content changes. It's so much harder to edit citations when they are put in the ultra-compact "waste no newline" format, and much more difficult as well to edit the surrounding text. LotLE × talk 06:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You make these changes as part of other changes, which makes it impossible to see what changes you actually made. If you want to make layout changes in an article, do them separately from content changes. And in any case, inserting loads and loads of empty lines, as you did, does not make any change and does not make anything more readable. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? Have you ever tried reading an article while editing? . It's just so much self-evidently easier to work with when editing if the citation templates are spaced out as I did (for a few of them).  When articles have this it's simply enormously easier to identify and modify citations (and combine dups, fix details, etc). The size in the database, FWIW, is exactly the same size to hold a linefeed or a space.


 * I do know that changing the layout makes the single incremental diff harder to read, but it makes every future edit easier. Maybe now that you've introduced the de-prettification, you can just look at the diff to see the usefulness of the edits, then restore the citations to the far easier to work with format?!


 * It's one thing if someone just adds some citations that aren't prettified. But to go into an article and destructively remove the prettification! It boggles the mind.  LotLE × talk  07:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I repeat: If you want to make layout/whitespace changes in an article, do them separately from content changes. Otherwise it's very hard to see what you changed. Once you change whitespace, it looks like everything has changed, any any actual content changes are hard to separate out. Doing major changes especially in whitespace as a way to hide other POV changes is a common technique. You seem to understand this, so I don't know why you are so hysterical.
 * Secondly, you added formatting that was plain nonsensical, with loads of empty lines in the quotes. Don't do that.
 * And if you think your formatting is a great idea, why don't you do it for all the quotes?
 * Lastly, no I don't agree it's easier to read and edit. I find that it creates a break in the middle of a paragraph where there is none in the rendered text. But that's obviously a matter of taste, and that was not the reason I changed it.
 * --OpenFuture (talk) 10:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Jesus MFing Christ! Now along with the destruction of readable layout, you are removing the use of citation templates to restore misformated references! This is nearly as vindictive as it is stupid... and we're skating close to user RfC territory here. LotLE × talk 07:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, RfC all you like. Stop inserting loads of blank lines in the code. Meanwhile, why you waste time on RFC:ing, I'm going to try to do this the Right Way. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Before you start again at messing up spacing, why don't you read the rather clear instructions at Citation templates. Hint: you're doing it wrong, and there's simply no ambiguity here. LotLE × talk 07:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are right, there is no ambiguity. Each and every example there actually use an inline style, and not the vertical style. And there is not one case of that page of having blank lines between each row like you do. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You didn't read that page, did you!? If you had, obviously you'd see every example in a vertical style. Why are you trying to mess up the work I've done for absolutely no reason, other than apparently some stupid ego game.  The content you've worked on looks perfectly fine... messing up formatting just for the sake of messing it up is about as childish as any edit can get.  LotLE × talk  07:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are not looking very closely. The examples in the table are not in a vertical style. They actually have several paramateres per row. They just end up looking vertical because the columns are narrow. And still you don't get it: You insert blank lines inbetween each row. There is no example for that. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the edit history, I see that you have never made a constructive, or even vaguely content-related, change to the Naomi Klein article (although I think you have to some related articles). What on God's green earth put it in your head that you needed to make random reversions and re-formatting of that actual content-changes I've tried to work on?! It would be one thing if you actually had a content disagreement. That would be fine: revise my edits; bring it up on talk; cite policies; whatever. That's how things should work. This nonsense is just pure, infuriating disruption for no purpose other than disruption. LotLE × talk 07:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree it's nonsense, and the problem here is that you obviously don't read a thing I say. I can't do anything about that. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Compromise/improvement
Would you agree to use the nice capability at Help:Footnotes? If you do that, I'll live with the uglier ultra-compact no-linefeed style. That's still a little harder to read, even within the {reflist}, but it doesn't make much difference down there. LotLE × talk 07:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC) P.S. I hadn't seen this addition until just now, but I actually proposed the code to implement it about 4 years ago (and I'm pretty sure I was the first to do so). I have no idea if the actual MediaWiki code is mine or just something analogous... though I do know you can thank me for the capability of referring to a named ref earlier than its citation details in the body. LotLE × talk 07:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well what do you think I'm doing right now? I told you that while you where wasting your time, I'm going to try to do this the Right Way. And you excpect me to believe you propose a feature, and then don't check up on if it's been implemented? Right... Now stop disturbing me. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Encuesta or Referendum
Hi, the confusion here over whether its a poll or referendum revolves around the fact that there are in fact 3 decrees using different language each time to describe the June 28 event. The language of the first was sloppy, not particularly legal even by the judgement of Zelaya's own legal advisor, and was never published, but the court documents present what they claim is a faithful copy. The second, which was published in La Gaceta, I thought called it an encuesta but I'm working from memory because I don't have time to look for my copy now. Finally, just two days before June 28, a 3rd decreto was published that sought to get around the military's lack of cooperation by calling on all government employees to help with the poll. It definitely called it an encuesta. There was never an intent to make it a binding referendum, just sloppy crafting of law, like we've seen under the de facto government as well. Hope this helps with your confusion. Rsheptak (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't confuse referendums with binding... In any case, if we can have more sources than La Gaceta that would be helpful. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In the Honduran legal code, a referendum is binding, period. To call something a referendum is to imply that its binding.  La Gaceta is the official newspaper where laws are published, so its definitive.  We don't need other sources.  Rsheptak (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Kensington Runestone
I may have not done the best job editing the article on the Kensington Runestone, but the evidence I cited needs to be entered in an obvious way. The article is very one sided and does not consider any of the research on the stone over the last ten years. The article draws a conclussion in the first paragraph. I dont think my version made it seem like it was definatly 100% ligit but it raised the question. I suggest if you happen to be flipping through the channels and see the special about the Holy Grail in America on the history channel you take the time to watch it. I don't have a horse in the race so I am not going to get into a fight of changing it again but I think the way it is written is very misleading. Garkeith (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You have not cited any evidence, only a newspaper article containing a bunch of obviously impossible fantasies. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Grytviken
Suggest you try it in a few different browsers and screen sizes, the revisions you made utterly screwed with the formatting in my browser. Firefox is not that uncommon really. Justin talk 22:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I tried it in many screen sizes, and I'm using Firefox. The problem with having all the images on the top is the all the [edit] links end up in a bunch somewhere further down the page. See the Talk-page. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And in my browser all the text is screwed up and there are large tracts of whitespace. Justin talk 22:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, then change it so both problems are fixed. That's NOT how it looks in my browser. If you can have all the images on top and still have the edit links show up correctly, that would be OK, although I'd prefer it if the pictures actually are close to the topics. And also, as mentioned, you reverted things that was not a part of these changes. Again. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Again you're reverting to a version that DOESN'T WORK. Now please stop the ridiculous edit warring.  Justin talk 22:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * IT WORKS! AND you are reverting more that you say! Is this hard for you to comprehend? Don't blindly revert over and over, Listen and FIX! --OpenFuture (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * IT DOESN'T WORK. Listen and fix?  I might stand a chance of doing just that if I didn't keep getting an edit conflict because some idiot has edit warred in the mean time to a version that doesn't fucking work.  Well that is just the most utterly ridiculous thing to edit war over, you're knowingly reverting to a version that fucks up the format. I do hope you're proud of yourself breaching WP:3RR for such a stupid edit.  I'm not going to indulge you in your pettiness, I will not be making a further revert but you can consider this your 3RR warning.  Justin talk 22:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Since all I have reverted is your reversion, I have not reverted any more than you. And since that's three times, you can not reasonably warn me.
 * You wouldn't get edit conflicts if you didn't revert. Just fix it instead of reverting. And for the last time: You are reverting other things than the image moving. How many times do I need to tell you that before you get it? Hello!! Anybody home? LISTEN!!! --OpenFuture (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 3RR is a guideline not a right to 3 revisions, you're knowingly reverting to a version that you've already been told doesn't work. That could well be considered vandalism by some and in which case a block for blind reverting is entirely possible.  Telling someone to listen, when you ignore something as basic as that is also somewhat hypocritical.  I see that someone else has also reverted for exactly the same reason as myself.  Perhaps you might get it now, you fucked up, its that simple.  Your edit doesn't work, perhaps now you'll listen. Justin talk 22:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You are knowingly repeating a revert you know is incorrect and broken. You are reverting something else than you claim you are reverting. You include two other changes, not just the order of the images I did. How many times will I need to repeat this until it registers in your brain? --OpenFuture (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Diff....you are the weakest link, goodbye. 23:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And his link *also* includes the incorrect reverts you did, where you reverted MORE than my changes of image ordering. Do you really not understand this? Look at the diff! There are changes in the headers, for example. You reverted more than you thought you reverted. OK? Is this unclear somehow? --OpenFuture (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now put the article into the state it was before the changes that you claim broke the page. Ie, the page is now in the state you claim you put it in (but you didn't). That should solve your issues, without reverting unrelated things, as you did. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A partial revert is still a revert, you are now in material breach of 3RR. I intended to remove those changes, the previous titles were more relevant.  Justin talk 23:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that can be discussed on the talke page, but that is a separate topic, I think they are an improvement. Also, your erranous revert included another picture that doesn't have proper formatting. The article is already load of pictures, that's already causing problems, this isn't flickr. ;) --OpenFuture (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Or if I were so inclined I could simply make a 3RR report and have you blocked for edit warring. They're not an improvement, I would also suggest you read WP:BRD and stop acting in the manner of a rude arrogant asshole.  There is no reason to remove that picture, so what, there are plenty of ways of fixing it if becomes necessary.  Justin talk 23:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Geez, you just do not listen do you? If you don't think they are an improvement, discuss that on the talk page, not here.
 * WP:BRD has nothing to do with this. This is not a problem of consensus. The problem is that you reverted more things that you intended to (or at least more things that you *claimed* you intended to), and when this was pointed out to you, just just continued redoing the same incorrect revert over and over. THAT is the main problem.
 * I'll stop acting as an arrogant asshole, when you stop acting as a moron. Start with listening to comments and stop just blindly reverting things. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Venezuela
I, I have seen what you have done to edit on Cuba. Maybe you could help with Venezuela, the main Cuba friend. And I really need some help. Look especially at Human rights in Venezuela, Eligio Cedeno and Maria Lourdes Afiuni. Voui (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've only reverted POV vandalism, but sure, I can do that on these pages to, no pb. :) --OpenFuture (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is a response to exactly, but it seems like you're not aware the article is currently protected for a week. I've started a userspace draft, User:Rd232/Human rights in Venezuela, which I mentioned in the "Reboot part 2" subsection. Any advice/input would be welcome. Rd232 talk 20:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a response to Voui's talk about "plans". I'm completely aware that the article is protected. The advice is the same I already gave twice in the talk section. Don't rewrite, don't make plans, make small changes, a couple of day, evolve the article but by bit. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

edit warring
You're edit warring at Kensington Runestone, which isn't allowed. If you carry on with this, you'll be blocked from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop making baseless threats. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hardly baseless and not a threat. It's a warning (your last) and I will block you if you carry on edit warring. If you don't understand what this is about, WP:Edit war may help. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a baseless threat, as I'm not edit warring in the first place. Just like your ridiculous answer on the talk page: "Not to sound harsh, but that would stray from WP:POINT and if carried on, could be blockable." You are very fond of raising the topic of blocking instead of contributing to the discussion. Try to be constructive instead of threatening, because it doesn't help. Unless of course it's your intention to not help, raise the temperature of the discussion and start a fight. Is it? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't skirt this warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, you change the topic when you are cornered. I'm not trying to skirt anything, I'm pointing out your nonconstructive, aggressive behavior, and telling you to stop threatening me with blocks when you are well aware that I haven't done anything wrong. I'm well aware with WP policy, including edit warring, and I am not edit warring. Neither did I earlier do any disruptive editing to prove a point, yet you brought it up. Again as a threat. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken. The policy on edit warring is very straightforward, you can't edit by revert, which is what you've been doing. As I tried to say before, you can't skirt this warning by saying I'm being "nonconstructive," "aggressive," "threatening" and so on. I don't want to block you, I very much want you to follow the policy and stop edit warring, which is always harmful to articles, even if what one is edit warring towards happens to be supported by the sources and later consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit warring is not defined as "editing by revert" but by as "when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion." I made a change. It was reverted. I re-did it, and added an explanation on the talk page. That is *not* edit warring. You *are* being nonconstructive and threatening, by repeatedly, with no reason, bringing up the topic of blocking instead of contributing to the discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I brought up blocking because that's what will happen to your account if you carry on edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop making baseless threats. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

She's making the same threats by me. Another much more aggressive editor called her in for help, and in my case, she has actually taken part in the edit war, so it does not make her an objective admin and it is not constructive when she throws in this imaginary WP policy of 'you can't edit by revert'. --Shuki (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, Edit warring needs to involve at least two persons. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Political prisoners in Venezuela
Since you have been involved as an honest broker, I thought that maybe you could help on this. Am in Europe and going to bed now (2am). CheersVoui (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Re-Adding Spam
Please do not re-add comments such as ":(". It is neither productive, nor helpful to the process. I would assume you know better. --Tarage (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You are not supposed to change other peoples comments, and especially not as a part of adding your own. It looks like a mistake. It's definitely *not* spam. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. A comment of ":(" and a signature is spam. If you want to take it up with an admin, I am confident they will agree. Wikipedia is not a forum. There is a reason for deletion of comments like that. --Tarage (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I get your point about not readding it, and I won't do it again. But I think you need to read up what "spam" means. :) --OpenFuture (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I understand what Tarage meant by calling this frowny face spam, although I wouldn't call it spam, it was nothing but a forumish blip and undoing the edit was helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Political repression in Venezuela
For you information, Rd232, after having nominated for deletion Political prisoners in Venezuela, has also nominated political repression in venezuela for deletion. See the discussion page. Voui (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Exclusive invitation
Ikip 05:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Cornelius Anckarstierna
Hi OpenFuture, can you revisit the AfD?  The left orium  20:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

September 11 attacks
Nice work. Rklawton (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the same. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Edits OK, and thanks for the help. Can I please also ask that you also edit the template in future, so that becomes  . That removes it from the Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests. TIA,  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Law of Demeter
Didn't look into whatever specific action you took or the article if there is one, but you should know that Karl Lieberherr, an academic at Northeastern University was the author of a post object oriented methodology based on this law he so-named and which was reasonably well known in computer science in the late 90s. It has largely merged into other things such as AOP. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  03:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Block
Then I am under clock warning because I want to improvge the wording of an article to be more neutral and less false? Why don't you block yourself for being authoritharian... --190.174.64.243 (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You are not under "block warning", I'm just telling you that continuing to use a talk page as a debating forum will get you blocked. Attacking editors also will get you blocked. You do not want to improve the wordings, you want to remove a piece of fact because you don't like it. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not true. I am trying to convey a sense of neutrality the article lacks specifically in that part. And what is written is not a fact, it's propaganda. You are the one attacking me and spamming me with undue notifications. --190.174.64.243 (talk) 12:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sigh. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture Edit Wars
You are continuing to edit the Permanent Makeup page in an attempt to exert your own opinions upon what is and what is not reasonable for external links. I consider your approach to be highly inappropriate as you have not participated in discussion on the page in question not have you made any contribution to the page in question. Your claim is that links to external sites are not appropriate however the page already contains links to external services which are no more appropriate than the ones provided. Yet you do not seek to remove those links.
 * Society of Permanent Cosmetic Professionals
 * American Academy of Micropigmentation
 * International Micropigmentation Association

An interesting observation for anyone using wikipedia is that the USA represents less than 5% of the worlds population yet of the 6 external links on the Permanent Makeup page not one is to a site within a country outside of the US. A visitor to wikipedia could be forgiven for incorrectly assuming that the only place that permanent Makeup is performed is within the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.94.220 (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The question is why is it that you consider 'your' opinion to be more valid than someone else's opinion? Who made you the chief of the Permanent Makeup Page?

I consider your behaviour to be vandalism and the arrogance in your style of editing is part of the reason why appropriately skilled people are becoming less inclined to participate due to bullying tactics of those who lack the skills pertinent to the subject matter in question. Hence the value of the information on the page is diminished because people who know what they are talking about are bullied into not contributing.

I leave you to your silly games —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.94.220 (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The links you added were spam. Spam is not allowed. This is not my opinion, but Wikipedia policy. See WP:SPAM. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Engaging in editing wars (what you have been doing) is against wikipedia policies please refrain from attacking other contributors particularly in instances where you have limited knowledge of the subject matter and you are merely expressing uninformed opinion. Your 'opinion' that external links added to a page, that lead to one of the few if not the only online source of information on the extent of training and detailed syllabus for technicians who provide the service as described in the article, constitutes spam, is just your opinion nothing more. You seem to be under some misapprehension that; 'I think' therefore 'it is fact' rather than more appropriately 'it is just one opinion' no more valid than the opinions of others.

The USA is not the only country on the planet and having articles written in a way that places a constant bias towards American ideas and opinions is neither healthy nor accurate. A country that has less than 5% of the earth's population and yet articles are written, edited, and guarded to maintain a dominance of American cultural identity. Permanent Makeup was not invented in the US, Permanent Makeup is not a service that is provided more frequently in the US, yet we have an article which is clearly biased towards the US both in content and in links to regulatory and industry sites. Other contributors face an onslaught of attacks from those who seek to maintain this unhealthy cultural bias which ultimately leads to poorly written articles with inaccurate content misleading the public on the facts.

Take pride in your achievement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.94.220 (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The links you added were spam. Spam is not allowed. This is not my opinion, but Wikipedia policy. See WP:SPAM. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume good faith of those who make an obvious contribution to the pages in question as opposed to those who simply like to engage in editing wars to dominate others with their narrow opinions. The facts are that you have made no positive contribution to the page in question and you engaged in an editing war which as you well know is against wikipedia rules. Please think about your actions before attacking the valuable contributions of other contributors especially in instances where you have nothing of any value to contribute yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.94.220 (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop spreading the same texts in multiple places. One is enough. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well actually it is you who is spreading repeated text in multiple places and I have simply responded to your multiple repeated posts. You have failed to address the valid points raised and you merely retreat to name calling labelling contributions of those with appropriate skills and knowledge as spam and it is abundantly clear you have made no effort to genuinely evaluate the benefit of the external links to the article in question, nor have you provided any alternative to the benefit of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.94.220 (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, not one word of what you write above is true. It was spam, end of story. If you don't like it, take it to dispute resultion, but stop harassing me with your bullshit. It was spam. Deal with it. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually all of it is very accurate you took it upon yourself to start editing the Permanent Makeup page and the time stamps on the page clearly show you edited the page without sufficient time to have evaluated the external links provided. When your edit was undone you began an edit war until what you wanted was all that was left and you posted on both the discussion page and on user IP page. Now that you have been called on your behaviour you resort to the use of highly offensive profanities (also against wikipedia rules) and then you try to hide your profanities by deleting everything. Honestly you need to find a way to make a more positive contribution to wikipedia rather than this sort of unhealthy and disruptive behaviour. Perhaps you have some knowledge about something that you could contribute?

The amount of conflict that you are engaged in with other participants should tell you something.

In any case I would ask that you stop editing pages unless you actually have something positive to contribute to that page and please stop edit warring with other contributors if you have a genuine point of view then you should enter your opinions onto the discussion page so that the community can decide on the merits of your opinions before editing the contributions of others.

Ghostofnemo - More than happy to attest to the fact that this contributor (I use that term very loosely) started an edit war on the permanent makeup page and has made no positive contribution to the content on that page. This sort of behaviour should be discouraged because it ultimately leads to poor quality content that represents nothing more than the uninformed opinions of an aggressive few.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.94.220 (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Your "contribution" was spam. Spam is not allowed. I removed it. There was no edit war in neither this case nor Ghostofnemos case. You have been asked to read up on Wikipedia policies multiple times. Please do do. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo - as can be seen from the aggressive attitude above, name calling and denigrating the positive contributions of others is not the sort of behaviour that should be tolerated in a community environment. OpenFuture has made no positive contribution on the page in question and it appears there is no intent to do so, one can only ponder the motives for the edit warring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.94.220 (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture edit warring and abuse of other contributors
You took it upon yourself to start editing the Permanent Makeup page and the time stamps on the page clearly show you edited the page without sufficient time to have evaluated the external links provided. When your edit was undone you began an edit war until what you wanted was all that was left and you posted on both the discussion page and on user IP page. When you were called on your behaviour you resorted to the use of highly offensive profanities (also against wikipedia rules) and then you sought to hide your offensive behaviour by deleting everything and engaging in edit warring again. Honestly you need to find a way to make a more positive contribution to wikipedia rather than this sort of unhealthy and disruptive behaviour. Perhaps you actually have some knowledge about something that you could contribute.

The amount of conflict that you are engaged in with other participants should tell you something?

In any case I would ask that you stop editing pages unless you actually have something positive to contribute to that page and please stop edit warring with other contributors if you have a genuine point of view then you should enter your opinions onto the discussion page so that the community can decide on the merits of your opinions before editing the contributions of others.

Oh and stop swearing at other people its against wikipedia policies and it is just plain offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.94.220 (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not in conflict with other participants, I do not edit war, I did not swear, I have done nothing offensive. **Please** stop harassing me. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence of your conflict with others on this very page including another complaint of edit warring. You have tried to hide your offensive swearing by deleting the entire discussion (including your profanity) and then edit warring to prevent it from being seen by others.

But of course it remains within the page history for all to see History

Swearing when you are losing a debate, and then deleting the conversation, and then trying to pretend you are a victim is very immature behaviour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.94.220 (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As Dlohcierekim pointed out on AN/I, calling bullshit bullshit is perfectly OK on WP. I suspect this is the return of someone who made trouble on the article a couple of years ago - the rhetorical style and determination to ignore all advice and warnings, and to try to turn the argument around to attack those who warn the IP are familiar. You were correct to revert the spam, it wasn't edit-warring on your part to enforce policy, and you were right to bring it to AN/I. If they return or harass you, please mention it at AN/I.   Acroterion  (talk)  03:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring complaint notification
Hello Open Future, I am in the process of initiating dispute resolution over your removal of referenced material from the 9/11 conspiracy theories article at the Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring page. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I welcome dispute resolution, so that's good. However, the Edit Warring noticeboard is for violations of 3RR and general edit warriors, and therefore it's not relevant in this case. You are just continuing to engage in disruptive behaviour, and not dispute resolution or consensus building. This is of course because you are well aware that consensus is against you. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Spirit Level
Can you explain why "That's not the point"? when reverting a clarification made to the entry on 'The Spirit Level'? The edit that was made demonstrated that the foregoing critic couldn't have read the explanation of the authors' use of the regression line, because he implied that the authors drew it, and not the statistical software they used. Removing the edit masks the critic's mistake. Why would we want that? - FlakJacqueline (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If that's the authors' response to that criticism, it just shows how naive they are about statistics. Nobody claims they have chosen the regression line, it's clear that the regression line is correct. The point is that a regression line does not show anything. Another Swedish economist on his blog recently did the same kind of graphs with regression lines showing that marriage leads to poverty, inflation, lower life expectancy, low human development, lower education, less doctors and lower access to clean drinking water. Yes, he did so as a joke, to show how the authors of the Spirit level are mistaken. They take a bunch of regression lines, and from that draw the conclusion that inequality causes social problems. In fact, it's the other way around. The social problems cause inequality. It's pretty obvious once you realize it. And marriage doesn't cause these other problems, it's poverty that causes them. But in poor countries people tend to get married more. It's just an correlation, not a cause.
 * In any case, the point of the criticism is not to say that the regression lines are incorrect, but that that conclusions are incorrect. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to have to say this, but if you had correctly read the part of article which you deleted, you would realise that that this was *not* "the authors' response to that criticism": the deleted passage cited a page number from the introduction to their book as the source of their explanation of the regression line. Therefore unless effect precedes cause, the authors were not "responding" in the introduction to a criticism that had not yet been made. This means that you have now duplicated the mistake of the critic you defend: neither of you correctly read the thing you disagree with. Moreover, if the matter is, as you claim, "the other way around" - i.e., that social problems actually cause inequality - I would be interested in hearing an explanation of how, say, higher rates of obesity make the rich richer and the poor poorer. - FlakJacqueline (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, good, then at least the authors wasn't very naive of the use of statistics. But it doesn't change the fact, the part you quoted does not in any way respond to or counter the criticism. I think the only way we can agree on this issue is to educate you in statistics, whgich I'm not the right person to do, and this is not the right place to do it. If inequality causes one problem it does not mean that it causes the other problems. Also, can you show that inequality causes obesity? That poor people are more overweight doesn't mean inequality causes obesity. If it did, then rich people would be obese in countries with high inequality. You can't show this by looking at a countries inequality and their national rate of obesity. you would have too look at obesity amongst rich, and compare that to inequality.
 * But, to answer your question: Poor people tend to be more obese. Obese people are looked down upon, and have problems getting jobs. Hence, poverty causes obesity that causes unemployment that causes poverty. It gets harder to climb a social ladder if you are fat, quite simply put. So obesity cements social differences and inequality. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sigh... - FlakJacqueline (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there something unclear? The critics *has* read the part you quoted. It is *not* an answer to the criticism. The book mistakes correlation for causation. Many social problems causes inequality, but there is little or no evidence that inequality causes social problems. If you have questions on this I'm prepared to explain it to you, if you are willing to listen. I know I'm not the worlds best teacher, but I'm willing to at least try. :) --OpenFuture (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Distribution of Wealth
Hope this is the right place to discuss ..

Recently I was looking for some info. Checked the Wiki page on "distribution of wealth." There was some information and a lot of conjecture and propaganda. So I removed the most egregiously slanted claims. Let me remind you :

"One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view."

You, Mr "OpenFuture", apparently decided that unverifiable religious claims that "capitalism has raised the standard of living for millions of people worldwide" or whatever other horseshit I deleted was not neutral. Oh no, that garbage you accept as fact. I *could* have mentioned that under communism the two-hundred-year slide of China into chaos was reversed.I *could* have mentioned that the *subject* of this article was distribution of wealth. Under the alleged subject of the article, socialism in China created a system where the vast disparity in wealth apaprent in the sanctified (pseudo)-capitalist nations did not exist.

But I didn't. I stuck to the tenets of wikidom and merely removed the most egregious bullshit then explained why.

YOU, my dear, are the one guilty of interfering with truth, justice, and the American way. YOU, sweetikins, are the one jamming propaganda down peoples' throats and distorting the facts. Exactly what does the religion of Kapitalism have to do with the subject of this article ? Since when do half the statements in that article have doodly-squat to do with objective fact ? Fact = ""10% of the population in the US owns 72% of the wealth." Conjecture = "Under kapitalism the wealth of the free World has grown to world-shattering levels, while socialism has proven itself to be a failed system." 70% of that article is crap. Graphs, fact (not from the CIA or the American Enterprise Institut(ion), either, please), figures, sure. All that is welcome and impartial. Garbage about the wonders of so-called capitalism is none of the above. If you were able to think, you would decimate that article yourself. It is mostly junk and has zero place in anything calling itself an enyclopedia or "impartial source."

If you actually want Wikipedia to ever be anything more than a laughinsgstock, you'd better grow some intellectual capacity.

Sorry if this was the wrong place to discuss; the organization of this site is less than obvious ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.22.142.82 (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. It is not the correct place for me to crush your pink ideological house of cards. If you want me to do that, you need to send an email address or something, and I'll give you some basic facts of the world. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo
In case you didn't notice, Ghostofnemo is peddling conspiracy theories all over wikipedia, as exemplified by his "work" in the JFK assassination article discussion. 78.55.165.233 (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that's just to be expected. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, he's using the same tactics there and is having people explain to him the same things again and again, just as in the 9/11 conspiracy article. In effect, disruption appears to be his m.o. 78.55.165.233 (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yup, that's a part of how all conspiracy theorists work. SNAFU. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note that my edits, after weeks of grueling debate, were finally admitted into the article, and formed the basis for the current "Possible evidence of a cover-up" section:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories#Possible_evidence_of_a_cover-up.
 * Why? Because they were well-reference and explain in NPOV detail why MANY PEOPLE suspect there has been a cover-up. I didn't argue there had been a cover-up - I quote sources that point to this possibility and sources which argue there has been a cover-up. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that the JFK articles is not my department. It is my collegue Patrick Brunels job to prevent any truth from entering that article. I assume that your edits are completely wrong if he allowed them. If not, expect to get fetched within a week for reprogramming. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Zd12 and NPOV
Whatever my point of view I don't see the point of your comment unless you have a criticism of a specific edit that I made. I try to be objective, and if I'm not then I'd hope you'd call me out on that instead of attacking me in this fashion. Zd12 (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have the same criticism of specifically all edits you make. They are highly biased. You often remove referenced material because you don't agree with it. That's not how Wikipedia works. And this is not a personal attack, I'm just telling you that even though you try to be neutral, you fail. This is true for everyone, although more so for some than others. You need to try harder. As you may have noticed, most of your edits end up being reverted. As you then realize, your current way of editing isn't working very well. You need to try to build consensus, not just remove things you don't agree with. Again, not an attack, it's just how things are. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I just consider Marx's material more relevant than any random anti-Marxist reference that someone without any knowledge of the subject found after a few seconds of browsing the internet. From now on I'll just use references from Marx himself, and if you want to argue that Marx knows less about his ideas than other people do then that's your choice. That my edits end up being reverted doesn't necessarily have anything to do with me. For example, you reverted my edit because you apparently though the idea of a non-political society was unrealistic despite the fact that it is a key part of Marx's theory of the state and it's dissolution, no matter how realistic you may consider it.Zd12 (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no "no". I'm telling you how it is. If you like it or not does not matter. Your conception that everyone else that edits these articles are idiots who know nothing is wrong. Your attitude will get your edits reverted, and you are going to end up blocked if you don't change. Try to improve the articel instead of fight. Wikipedia is a revolution, not a coup d'etat. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You act like I am new to this. Much of what I am doing is based on what has in the past been discussed, fixed, and subsequently altered so that the same incorrect stuff is re-insertd into the article. I shouldn't have to explain my edits any more than I currently do when they have been decided in previous discussions over and over and over and over. These same errors, due to how common they are, pop up quite frequently. If something is incorrect how else do you improve the article but by removing it? Also, how will the attitude of sourcing Marx get me blocked on issues of Marxist theory?Zd12 (talk) 09:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You behave like you are new to this, like for example not indenting when you answer. If you are not new to Wikipedia, then you are intentionally breaking Wikipedia policies, and then your edits are nothing but simple vandalism. You seem now to be telling me that I'm wrong in assuming good faith when it comes to you. Is this your intention? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) has placed some icecubes so everyone can get a cool drink! Nothing is more important then a cool head during a heated discussion, so help yourself!

Remember to Keep cool during discussions. Overheated machinery tends to break down. :)

Notification of existence of Discretionary sanctions relating to 9/11
Please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories#Discretionary_sanctions.

Please ensure that your interaction is in-line with our behavioral policies, as such please refrain from insinuating that other editors have obsessions. Please ensure that your arguments adhere to our content policies and that such arguments are substantiated. Unomi (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Getå Railroad Disaster
Thank you so much for your help with bryggskjuts! I translated it as milk cart. If you have time, I'd appreciate it if you would take a look at the translation, as it's been a while since I've translated anything from Swedish to English. Thanks again! -Yupik (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Theory or Practice of Communism
From your comment on communism: Because the article is about the theory, not the practice. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC) So is there an article about the practice of communism? Bugguyak (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Communism is an impossibility, so there can be no practice as you can not have communism. There are however an article about the effects of trying to create communism by force: Mass killings under Communist regimes. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that is what I was looking for. I'm surprised that it even exists since there is so much procommunist bias here. Bugguyak (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Pointless
I really think it pointless to carry on arguing with the guy. Not only is he rude, ill-mannered and petty, he is - as you suggest - possibly harbouring a grudge for something else and is acting out whenever he can. I attempted to be conciliatory on his talk page but he was as rude as before. I suggest ignoring him and letting him get on with whatever it is that this important campaign of his stands for. I'm certainly never going to have anything to do with him in the future. Kind regards, Ericoides (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

International reaction to the 2010 Polish Air Force crash
I've replied on the talk page, but am also notifying you here. Consensus is that the reactions should be part of the article. I'm not going to use a boilerplate warning, but consider this as equivalent to a uw-delete4.

You are flogging a WP:DEADHORSE. Further removal of content from the article against consensus will be considered WP:DE and result in a report being made at WP:AIV and/or WP:ANI.

I don't like to see any editor blocked where that can be avoided. If you really can't work with others to improve the article by removing things such as flagcruft, then maybe you should walk away and let others work on the article. If you wish to comment constructively (i.e. countries vs continents) then please do so. Mjroots (talk) 06:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There has not even been a discussion on the topic, how can you claim consensus? During the merge discussion it was clear that many was against this list. Also, you claim to give me a uw-delete4 without previous warnings or even discussion of the topic, and threatening me with a block you can not give, and yu very well know I neitehr deserve or will get. That's further breaks against policy. You are out of line. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I can give you a block, but to do so would not be a good idea, as I'm involved in a dispute with you. The AfD discussion did produce many against the list, and many in favour of it too. The original consensus was that the list should be split from the article on the crash, consensus that was affirmed when the list was merged back into the article and an edit war broke out over its re-addition. Read what I said above carefully, I'm trying to avoid having to take this further if I can do so. When there's a dispute, an article will be at the WP:WRONGVERSION for at least one editor. Continally warring over which version is correct is not how to settle the dispute. Accept that the article is at the wrong version, and discuss on the talk page. You may consider a RFC, but that would need to run for 30 days. Mjroots (talk) 08:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your refusal to discuss the issue are not helped buy aggressiveness and threats. You know very well that I have done nothing wrong, and your insistence of trying to prevent discussion to reach consensus are indication that you know that you are wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Reaction list
Can you comment on Talk:Reactions_to_the_2010_Moscow_Metro_bombings about flagcruft? what exact do you refer to? --Kslotte (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

2010 Polish Air Force crash
Re your reversion of C1010's edit. An additional reference was added to an English language source. This allows verification by readers who cannot read Polish or Russian, and therefore is a valid addition. Mjroots (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That source sucked donkeyballs. But OK, it stays until I can be bothered to do a simple google search to find a better one. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the added sources provide links to articles in English language where previously no English sources were referenced. Moreover, I think your edits are not in good faith, for you repeatedly make false statements and are quick to remove sources that you seem not to like for some personal reason. C1010 (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Utter bullshit, and a personal attack, which is against policy. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Stating facts isn't a personal attack. I'd suggest you review basic Wikipedia policies, including "Be civil". C1010 (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, the link to Krakow Posts translation into english is there already. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So what? The reference is highly relevant and there are plenty of other sources in the article that are referenced more than once.C1010 (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So your claim that no other English sources are/were referenced is incorrect. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * False again. The section of the article I edited originally had one reference - a document in Russian and Polish language that isn't of much use to many English language readers. I fixed the title of the original reference (it mistakenly claimed that the source was only in Russian) and added two relevant English language sources. You reverted my edit stating "That's not a better reference", which is wrong on many levels: English language sources, neutral point of view, good faith, etc.
 * Anyway, I'm not looking for a confrontation. I think you're wrong for the reasons I explained above. If you have some additional sources that you feel should be referenced in the article, feel free to add them. C1010 (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I can lead a horse to water, but I can not make him drink. The End. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Newbies
I noticed the reply you recently gave at Talk:2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash to newcomer. I feel that as a new editor, your reply was on the harsh side. A valid point was raised re the security of the black boxes. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. Mjroots (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, I really have no idea how you can feel that is harsh in any way. :) --OpenFuture (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

2 things
First of all, i didn't propose using wiki pages as references, i simply said it was possible, i used external sources as reference.

Secondly, i remove any copypasta (if you don't know that term it means prefab messages) on sight. Especially those 'welcome to Wikipedia messages'. I'm not doing it so that other people can't see what i've done, they could eaily just check my edit log. It's just that i want my talk page to be for genuine talking, not bot-spam. 188.223.62.45 (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

list of democracies
Hi! Um, maybe you could have responded on the talk page before simply reverting both edits; one of them is completely unsourced, and in the case of the other, the source does not support the claim. Polity IV gives current data, at least the link provided does, not data for the situation in 1920, or 1981. Please revert or source these edits, as per WP:V : "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." and "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation" Aryah (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait, no, I apologize, I was incredulous that such data even existed as way back as 1920, but now I see this graph http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1d/Number_of_nations_1800-2003_scoring_8_or_higher_on_Polity_IV_scale.png that gives at least some data 2 centuries ago. Then, take your time, and source the claims, and apologies for being delete-trigger happy :) Aryah (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the Polity IV data does really support the claims. But there is no webpage that says so clearly, you'll have to look at the data (in a huge Excel file). They do have country-graphs though. They could work. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus has no power to overrule facts or sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are misquoting policy; Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. Revert warring on the basis of "past consensus" has been a banning offense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Complete and utter nonsense. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But that complete and utter nonsense is policy, as you will find if you click on the link. It is not necessary to agree with it; those who do not generally find themselves happier editing their own web-sites or sites like Wikinfo, which do not attempt to present balanced articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is not policy. It's your misinterpretation of policy. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Exceptions
Much more importantly, have you read any of the quite extensive literature on the democratic peace other than Rummel? (I have read and commented on the article's talk page (and that of DPT) - and one member of your "consensus" doesn't seem to have done that much. Rummel is perfectly willing to include constitutional monarchies as democracies if they enfranchise two-thirds of their adult male citizens - without doing so, he would have even fewer democracies, excluding Britain and Canada and Sweden.)

All of the other literature supporting the democratic peace, with two exceptions that I know of, argues that the democratic peace is a very strong correlation. Very strong correlation is a better argument (Spiro's paper, which should still be in the references of the main DPT article, argues that the claims of zero are not statistically significant, because they acknowledge so few warring pairs and so few democracies that it is not surprising that there is no overlap); but every one of them acknowledges marginal exceptions.

Thus for example, Dean Bobst, in the very first paper on the subject, calls the Boer War a war between democracies; Singer and Small acknowledged two marginal exceptions; Bruce Russert, in his theory of the gradual emergence of the liberal peace, counts numerous exceptions in Greek history - but then Greek democracies didn't conduct their internal politics peaceably either. Gleditsch finds the democratic peace much stronger, and perhaps more explainable, if one considers only formally declared wars; but then the Finnish-UK war of 1940 shows up as a lone exception; which doesn't weaken his theory - for it is so obviously marginal.

Which cases turned up as the handful of exceptions depends, obviously, on what standards of war and democracy you use. There are several policy sets on war; there are many, many definitions of democracy. What is important, and also worth saying, is there are normally only a handful.

And so on. It was useful to have a list of these cases; it was also useful to have a list of the cases (the First Balkan War, the Spanish-American war, the Venezuela crisis, and so on) cited by the skeptics of DPT. The article you edit war for is unbalanced, incomplete (in that it does not even mention the question of multiple definition), and lacking due weight on, say, Russert or Debating the Democratic Peace. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. If this were a forum, arguments for one point of view would be wholly appropriate; Wikipedia, however, expects all significant points of view on a subject to be represented.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this a tacit admission that the answer to Much more importantly, have you read any of the quite extensive literature on the democratic peace other than Rummel? [and perhaps Ray and Weart] is No? If not, what of the extensive bibliography at democratic peace theory have you read? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No it isn't. Read WP:NOTAFORUM and other policies. Your attempts of discussing the issues are irrelevant. Don't discuss the issues, discuss the *articles*. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I read it aomw years ago, and just reread it. It still says nothing to discourage discussion of sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody discouraged discussion of sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And yet the post with which this section began is entirely about the sources on the democratic peace; a riddle. What's the solution? Ah, I have it; this post was not intended as discouragement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that is not a discussion about a source or about sources. That you mention sources does not mean you discuss sources, which I'm sure you understand. Your attempts to make me insult you will not work, so you can drop it. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Noted. On this talk-page, quoting policy is misinterpretation of policy; writing a post about sources is not discussing sources.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As usual, you are completely wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And if that clear and convincing array of evidence fails to persuade me, then what? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you write a lot of irrelevant things on my talk page. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stay off my talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 10:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to get warnings for violating policy, then don't violate policy. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not enough. People warn me for policy violations when the policy exists only in their imaginations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 10:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe "people" do. I don't. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash
When I spoke of "consesus", I just speak from my experience and point of view. Generally, if I was the one running the show, I try to get about 80 percent before I say consensus is complete. You still got people reverting you about the list of condolences, so something is not present. This is why I suggested an RFC, away from that talk page, just to get an idea about the list of condolences. Given the sudden nature of the crash, I expect more folks would want to keep a list of condolences because it was a sudden event, unlike the death of, lets say, US President Ford of Reagan. Another thing, and this is to keep it in mind, several countries either had official days or mourning or had state broadcasts suspended until the funeral ceremonies were over. That might explain part of the reverts, but that is just me. I like to hear your thoughts and hopefully come up with a solution. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand that many people's emotions tell them that Wikipedia should be made into a sort of condoleance book for this. I was shocked too. But I'm also able to look through my emotions and realize that such a list does not belong on Wikipedia, for numerous reasons.
 * Consensus is not about voting. Sure, 80%, fine that sounds good, but what if you don't? Neither side has a clear 80% advantage. Well, then you have to look at the arguments. And the fact is that the arguments are clearly on the side *against* the list, which is also why they have stopped arguing, and just say "No" and revert. And the two guys who was involved in the discussion has now even left and do't say anything, nor revert. The last reverts now after the RFC is done by somebody who was not involved in the previous discussions. IN fact, some 12 year old guy who thinks he is some sort of genius, and also does not engage in the discussion.
 * So, fine. I've made my point multiple times. It's clear that the arguments and a small majority lies with removing the list. So it's removed. If people don't like it, escalate. I'm tired of talking to walls. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and locked the article to where the consensus version is in place for 3 days, so more discussion can take place. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. Very good idea! --OpenFuture (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I been watching the article for months, so trying to get this issue to settle. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

English

 * people with me that the pen pal is my countryman, living in the same city. and whether I should talk with their countrymen in another language --Filip knez (talk) 10:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as you are on English Wikipedia, you should. Those are the rules. On English Wikipedia, you use English. Simple, really. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. If another user speaks your language, and wishes to communicate in that language, then it is perfectly acceptable to speak something other than English. However, when you are on community boards like this or on article talk pages, use English (unless you are quoting text from another language). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * From the policy: "No matter to whom you address a comment, it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia talk pages. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, try to also provide a translation of the comments. If you are requested to do so and cannot, you should either find a third party to translate or to contact a translator through the Wikipedia:Embassy." So, yes, exactly. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Preferred, but not required. Plus, as I said, for the actually communtity pages, like ANI, article talk pages, English only is idea. User pages, I don't care and most admins do not care either. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That last part should probably be clarified. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There are some projects, like the Commons, are multi-lingual and we have really no policy on languages, except for categories. Here, the English Wikipedia, it is ideal to use English, but also keep in mind that this is the flagship project of the entire Wikimedia Foundation. So we will get everyone from every language. I do see some users warn that languages other than English are present. Look, I am not trying to be an asshole or a pain in the backside, but I am trying to give an idea of what really happens, regardless of what guidelines or policies are in place. I have used my talk page in Russian, Spanish and Japanese many times, so I do break the rules. Just remember WP:IAR and you will have an easier time on Wikipedia. (Btw, about the Polish article, ok, no list of condolences). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying that if the practice is to allow in on personal talk pages, that should be mentioned in the policy. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, see your point. Ok, I will suggest something (unless it is a part of IAR). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert
Could you please reply to a WQA here. TFD (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding removal of POV templates. The thread is Removal of POV templates.The discussion is about the topic Mass killings under Communist regimes. Thank you. TFD (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope it's not too presumptuous, but I un-bolded your "Agree" so that someone who is just looking over that section at-a-glance doesn't confuse your comment with the "Agree"s that want the tags to stay. BigK HeX (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh, no it's fine. :) --OpenFuture (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop
Hi. I see several warning templates by you on Pmanderson's talkpage and history, even after he requested you not to post on his page. It's not meaningful to keep posting on somebody who has asked you to stop, nor to plant templates on the regulars. Please stop. The article talkpage exists for discussing the article; please use it, rather than Pmanderson's talk. As for your block warnings ("you will be blocked", etc), they don't make sense. Not being an admin, you're not in a position to assure people they will be blocked. Bishonen | talk 20:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC).


 * I *am* using the talk page, but that's not working as he either ignores it, or uses personal attacks. I only place warning templates on PMandersons talk page when he violates Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy requires me to warn him and notify him. If he just say "Don't write on my talk page" and that means I shouldn't, I end up in a situation where I can't do anything. I need to warn him before I raise an alert, and now I can't do that. So what am I supposed to do? --OpenFuture (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Mediation is your next step. Neither Wikiquette alerts nor WP:ANI are intended for content disputes. I'll give you some free advice first. If your warnings are seriously meant (and not merely preparation for "raising an alert"!), use a human voice to deliver them in. Don't send a swarm of robots. All those templates merely annoy. Try to put yourself in the place of the person getting them. Regards, Bishonen | talk 21:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC).


 * Thanks for your answer, I'll simply stop warning people with templates. Just telling PMAnderson to stop attacking me seem pointless he is obviously aware of the attacks. And the WQA was obviously not about a content dispute, but about his attacks. The content dispute I put to the notice board of reliable sources. It seemed the best, even though it's not actually about RS, but about his SYN of two different sources. His reluctance to discuss and refusal to listen is as far as I can ascertain not against any policy. ;)
 * I'm still slightly at a loss of what to do when policy requires me to warn or notify people and that person has forbidden me to write on his talk page... I guess I simply make a note of that on the noticeboard and ask somebody else to notify the user if this happens again. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what's so hard, really. How many times do you want to warn a person? What policy asks for seven warnings...? (Probably there were more than seven, but that's as far as I had the energy to count in Pma's history tab.) Warn once, if you must, and if then you get asked to stay away, it means you've warned enough. No need to ask somebody else. Bishonen | talk 22:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC).


 * I don't want to warn anybody, but the policy used to be that you should give somebody a full set of warnings before you take it up at a noticeboard, and also the incident has to be "recent". At least that's how I understood it. It was also recommended that you used templates, as these was designed to not piss people off. Evidently these policies has changed since I started editing. Now you apparently should warn somebody once, not using a template unless they are a newbies, and then escalate to a noticeboard or similar. Apparently I need to be less patient. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Common sense is your best friend; if you can't give a "full set of warnings", then simply say so when you bring it to a noticeboard. (I wouldn't recommend ANI. They'd most likely say "Mediation/RFC is thataway"--what do you want an admin to do here?") Note that you're responsible for whatever you say in a template, and there are no useful templates for content disputes. For instance: You're wrong to accuse the other party of vandalism. (And Pma is wrong in doing the same, too.) You're wrong to fuss about supposed Personal Attacks; focus on your disagreements about the article instead. And you're wrong to give the impression you're an admin ("you will be blocked) See? Templates are unsafe, and only fit the simplest kind of case. Bishonen | talk 10:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC).


 * Well, one thing common sense tells me is that ANI should be for something, yet here an admin tells me to ignore them. :-) So common sense in handling conflicts in Wikipedia is not always particularly useful, especially since many of the conflicts comes from people lacking it. But thanks for the recommendations. I'll probably use ANI much quicker in the future (for personal attacks, at least), and if I get no response there (which is the case of the WQA and RS/N I posted in this conflict) I guess I have to go to Mediation, even if I don't like it.
 * It is very difficult to handle people who stonewall, I clearly need to get better at that. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Rumells Numbers
You have asked what it is about rumells numbers which are critisiced, this may help mark nutley (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

1RR
Please come and explain your edit-warring Here Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't edit warred, so there is nothing to explain. If you had been civil, you could have asked me to explain why I made two reverts. And then I would have answered. But your constant attacks and incivility does not exactly mean that I find that you can demand explanations. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC/U
Were in the rfcu do i post my evidence? I have never done an RFC/U before mark nutley (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Add diffs under Evidence of disputed behavior. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)--OpenFuture (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done mark nutley (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-07-17/List of wars between democracies
I've closed this out as he isn't interested. Not sure why an admin on ANI sent you to MedCab, definitely seems to be an admin issue and if you are in need of a mop on that article if things are getting out of hand let me know and I will bring mine as I've not been involved. --Wgfinley (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, very strange, but I thought it best to make a MedCab case to make sure. Thanks! --OpenFuture (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope I didn’t mess up here re Pmanderson
I gave an editor your name and suggested he/she contact you for advise on how best to proceed with this Wikiquette involving Pmanderson. If I screwed up, please advise and I will revise my post. Greg L (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes
All editors are allowed to raise a question on any article. Amending that question and aggressive attacks on individuals breech a whole range of wikipedia policies. Please participate in a collegiate way and respect WP:AGF. This is particularly important when you have a declared political position in respect of the topic. -- Snowded TALK  06:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not amending the question. I'm changing the heading to reflect the question. I have not attacked anyone. Both you and BigK Hex has had this question answered clearly to you multiple times. His claim that it has not been clearly answered is incorrect. If you want respect, you have to give respect, and the first you need to do is tio listen to arguments and answers, even if they happen to contradict what you want to hear. And I do not have one smidgen more of political position on this than you have. I have only realized that communism isn't a good idea, and why. This is not a political position. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are changing the question if you change the heading. You are attacking people - just look at your comments.  You seem to have this idea that if people disagree with you they are only doing so because they either don't understand your arguments or they are filtering them on the basis of some bias.  I referee a lot of articles and I can tell you now that your argument on "absence" would not survive any review process.  What is important is that you respect process.  Splitting out a contentious issue and allowing all involved editors to make BRIEF statements is one way to try and resolve conflict and also structure a solution.  If you don't feel able to collaborate in that type of process then the content (and possibly the behaviour of the editors) is going to be subject to wider review by the community.  I suggest you bear that possibility in mind and moderate your comments, restricting them to content issues and simply STOP commenting on other editors.  -- Snowded  TALK  07:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are changing the question if you change the heading.  - No. The heading had nothing to do with the question. I changed it so it did.
 *  You seem to have this idea that if people disagree with you they are only doing so because they either don't understand your arguments or they are filtering them on the basis of some bias.  - No, although that is clearly so in this case. But in general, absolutely no.
 * I referee a lot of articles - Good. Then take a step back, lose your emotional connection to this article, and look at the Wikipedia policies. Then you'll see that your and BigK Hex's issue with this article simply do not exist.
 * restricting them to content issues and simply STOP commenting on other editors.  - I'll do that, when you and BigK Hex stop reiterating questions that has been answered many times.
 * . If you don't feel able to collaborate in that type of process - I CAN. Can you? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I've tried to do the decent thing and raise the issue with you. Its pretty evident that its not something you feel you need to listen to so fine.   We will see how it plays out.  -- Snowded  TALK  07:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I listen and I understand. But as you say, I don't agree. I also think you need to listen to *me*, which you clearly don't. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Your RfC is still uncertified
Hi, OpenFuture. This is about your RfC on Pmanderson. I've cross-posted it to the RfC talkpage. I'm afraid I don't see you "trying to resolve a dispute" on the RfC. Posting some template on a user's talkpage is much more likely to annoy him/her, than to "resolve" anything. I'm beginning to feel it's kind of uphill work to try to get you to take this central fact on board. Did you perhaps miss the "minimum requirements" for a user conduct RfC? They're on the main RfC/U page. They're a little fuller than the stuff at the top of the RfC itself. Please now read them carefully:
 * ''Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.

You see? should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. Shell Kinney is the editor who comes closest to making such an attempt, but she hasn't signed the RfC—in fact I can't see any indication that she's involved in it at all. She may not want to be, especially as she's an arbitrator. Compare the rule that the "persons complaining" must certify the page by signing it: is Shell Kinney complaining here? If it comes to that, are you...? You haven't signed the page either, you're completely anonymous. Marknutley is the only signatory so far.

I realise that RfC/U is a bit of a bureaucratic nightmare, and I'm not trying to make trouble for you. The signatures aren't a major problem (at least, not if Shell wishes to certify the RfC). But there is one major problem, and that is the lack of attempts to "find a resolution or compromise." What you call your attempts, and Marknutley's attempts, don't look to me like they're trying to resolve anything. They're mostly in the third person, and in an angry tone. They're attempts to get people to agree with you about how bad and rude PMA is; they're not even addressed to him! Shell Kinney's post is the only exception. I've read your NPA template, your wikiquette alert, and your complaint on ANI, and it's frankly ridiculous to refer to any of them, or to Marknutley's complaints, as "attempts to find a resolution or compromise". As you know, I have somewhat been following the quarrel between you and PMA and have tried to explain that it's important to genuinely try to overcome your mutual hostility, rather than merely try to formally prepare the ground for arbitration or whatever. I'm sorry to see that I've obviously not managed to make myself very clear. Bishonen | talk 00:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC).

Unless you, and at least one other editor, make such genuine attempts, and fix the signature problem, I will delete this RfC 48 hours from the time you moved it into Wikipedia space. It's still uncertified. Bishonen | talk 00:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC).


 * I did not miss the requirements, but apparently I misunderstood what trying to resolve a dispute is when that dispute is one user making personal attacks towards other users. Can you give examples of that? I also have no idea why you are so aggressive when it comes to this. I also think it would be a good idea if this RFC is taken care of by somebody who is not good friends with the user who's conduct is in question. I think one of the mistakes you do is when you talk about mutual hostility. There exists absolutely no hostility against Pmanderson from my side, only frustration with being attacked instead of having constructive discussion happening. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's true that I know PMA slightly. I wouldn't say we are friends; if we were, I wouldn't propose deleting an RfC that is going so well for him. I can't give examples of something that, as far as the comments suggest at the moment, may not exist. You say the dispute is "one user making personal attacks towards other users", but the Outside views generally deny that PMA habitually makes personal attacks, and they are so far quite negative towards your editing, and positive towards PMA's. TFD claims that "OpenFuture himself has made many comments which in my opinion far exceed anything that Pmanderson has written, and can be seen in the WQA archive 88." Cynwolfe comments on your RfC with "I profoundly dislike the idea that WP:CIV can be used as a tactic to stifle vigorous debate." Haploidavey praises PMA's editing, and says of your sense of injury and suspiciousness that "Had I doubted his good faith and refused his changes with insistent re-iterations, suspicions of his motives and demands for sources to which I had personal access, I'd have earned the same kind of responses." Active Banana, after unflattering reflexions about how trying it is to have "interminable 'discussions' with user:Marknutley", is the only editor who criticises even one offensive remark PMA has made.


 * OpenFuture, perhaps you missed another comment on the main RfC page: that an RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors. Attacking me as "aggressive" and "good friends with the user whose conduct is in question" won't save your conduct from being just as much in question.


 * I have one practical suggestion: if you really want this RfC to proceed beyond 48 hours (though I must admit I don't see why you would), then you could ask PMA if he's willing to waive the 48-hour-rule in this instance. Since the RfC seems to be bringing more scrutiny on your conduct than his, I don't see why he would mind. Bishonen | talk 12:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC).


 * Well, you seem extremely friendly on each others talk pages, and you are for absolutely no reason extremely hostile against me. I find that a bit surprising.
 * I can't give examples of something that, as far as the comments suggest at the moment, may not exist. -I of course asked for examples in general, not in this particular case. Because you can not reasonably say that it is in fact impossible to fulfill this requirement?
 * but the Outside views generally deny that PMA habitually makes personal attacks, and they are so far quite negative towards your editing - But the personal attacks are documented. We have loads of links. They may deny it, but the evidence is there. Are you, as an administrator who is not objective but already previously hostile with me and friendly with Pmanderson, going to ignore that evidence, and close this RfC because you can't give examples of how this conflict could have been solved?
 * Attacking me as "aggressive" and "good friends with the user whose conduct is in question" won't save your conduct from being just as much in question.  - That's OK, I'm confident about my conduct, and although I may have been a bit prickly, I have never done any of the types of personal attacks that Pmanderson have. I have even invited scrutiny of my behavior here: . If I make mistakes, I'm convinced I can learn from them and become a better editor.
 * All I want is that Pmanderson stops his personal attacks, and instead engages in constructive discussion and consensus building. Is that really too much to ask for? --OpenFuture (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've only skimmed your dispute with PMAnderson, but for whatever it's worth: I've had similar problems with PMAnderson being uncivil, and so have a number of others. In my case, he had a history of reverting edits containing well-sourced information which either directly contradicted his own edits, or which he personally didn't happen to agree with or believe in. Incivility sometimes follows. He doesn't do it as much with me anymore, and I really only bump into him on one page: Alexander Hamilton. You could look at my talk page (it's almost exclusively PMAnderson stuff), as well as the Alexander Hamliton edit history and the Alexander Hamilton talk page [Talk:Alexander_Hamilton|edit history] if you need examples at any point--the worst of his incivility with me was over a year ago. If I were you though, I would just let it roll off my back or take a break. I took a long break from Wikipedia, which turned me back into a more casual user than I was becoming; I can't say that was a bad thing for me. Any work you do on Wikipedia can instantaneously be overwritten or reverted by anyone for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reasons. It's maddening. It doesn't matter if your edits are as verifiable, well-sourced, and uncontroversial as can be; someone will occasionally be camping out on certain articles, waiting to revert any changes they dislike. I would suggest that you try to resolve things by making reasonable arguments with ample citations. That's all you can really do. There will likely be times where you may discover part way through a discussion that you've made a mistake; if so, just concede the point, learn from it, and move on to the next point--it's not the end of the world. If your edits are correct, and they're being messed with, there are mechanisms for slapping editors on the wrist who constantly flaunt the rules of Wikipedia, but Wikipedia doesn't really care that much about actually enforcing its rules and guidelines; they don't have much in the way of teeth. You may as well learn that now--you'll be better off for it in the long run. If there's something you still feel really strongly about, make sure you use the proper channels and mechanisms. Wikipedia is a giant bureaucracy full of technocrats and you have to work within that system or you'll not get much out of it. That's my two cents. Good luck. AdRem (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I'm already much better at ignoring ad hominems and personal attacks, but with Pmanderson he used it as a way of not discussing, and I tried to take up both the conduct and the content dispute at one time, and that didn't work. :) So now we'll let the conduct dispute get to rest. There has been quite a lot of support on the RfC (you are of course welcome to add your view or support one of the views expressed) for him to get a warning of some kind, which very well may be enough. He is clearly an intelligent guy, that should be enough to tell him that his personal attacks aren't acceptable. Then we could go on with the content dispute in a constructive manner. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Take it cool man
take a deep breath relax, you dont want it doubling back on you Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm trying to be cool, but when an admin suddenly accuses me of all kinds of things, and threatens to delete an RfC I have spent a stupid amount of time on just because I used a template to ask Pmanderson to not do personal attacks, then my frustration levels got pretty high. They are better now. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't make personal attacks like this, even if the other editor is not being very nice either. Keep it civil at all times.  If you don't like someone's tone, just say it like that and then resume the discussion, "I don't appreciate your tone and I disagree with your stance because..." Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what happens
If you are prepared not to refer to past history - and you know by now what my judgment of your historiography is - we shall see. If you fall into the same flaws, I shall simply ignore you, as I said I would. You have a great deal to disprove; but I look forward to evidence that you are intelligent and educated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I should appreciate it if you would cease to ascribe views to me, and strike the passages in which you have done so in the past 24 hours. I hold none of the six options you put forth; I stated my position thus: Our policies on including sources have nothing to do with majority views; we include each view in proportion to its prevalence to its appearance in the literature: most space to the plurality view; less to lesser views; none to the fringe. Therefore we should include any war on which there is a significant view that it was between democracies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually ascribe any views to you, I was in fact careful not to do that. The closest I got was to say that one view seems to be the closest to the position you have expressed during our discussion. I'll note that you don't agree. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So where is the evidence? "Everything you say about me is wrong", "my favorite website uses a neologism" (especially when they don't disagree on substance), and "a criteria" are not persuading me of anything you promised. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the POLICY IV project you refer to so often? Can you link to it? --OpenFuture (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for catching that error in Beverly Hills, 90210 franchise. -- James26 (talk) 08:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ender's game
You woulf find Ender's game interesting I think. It postulates that a 'civilised society' could not engage in xenogenocide, so came up with a bizarre method of tricking the participants into carrying out the mass destruction. The whole book is fascinating - the running thread of Demosthenes and Locke I believe is intended to represent the risk from the intelligensia. Everyone knows politicians make knee-jerk responses about some things, based on the lowest denominator press. What is often overlooked is the way key people can be persuaded by theories to do things that, if one asked them at the outset simply to carry out the eventual outcome, they would have refused point blank. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing new to me in other words. Might very well be a good book anyway, it did get a Hugo. I'll put it on my todo list. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a good book, and the way it presents its ideas is interesting. But I empathise with the to-do list.  So much stuff, so little time - when does one get the chance to do it all. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You will have to buy the sequels as well to make sense of it - but its more than worthwhile (unlike the rest of his books) -- Snowded TALK  10:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice, I'm looking for a series to plow through when I'm tired of non-fiction, haven't had anything since I caught up with Pratchett. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * However, the point that Elen mentions is made in the first chapters of the first book, once an independent novella (which may be what actually won the Hugo); the rest is analysis. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You three have the same opinions; the same tendency for uncivility; the same ways of expression and (not) debating; the same lack of logic in your reasoning; and the same problem in interpreting what others say; and you read the same books. Are you some sort of sect? --OpenFuture (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, although we appear all to be citizens of the Republic of Letters, which may be cause enough to reason the same way from the same data. I have occasionally edited and discussed with Cynwolfe, although I have no idea of her politics or religion; if I have met Elen before I do not recall it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't think we ever have. Cynwolfe and I have edited one article Glossary of ancient Roman religion together with others.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well speaking personally I am honored to be collectively insulted in this way. As a character says in Lord of the Rings The praise of the praiseworthy is praise indeed.   I think this is an antonym (if such can be applied to a phrase).  -- Snowded  TALK  22:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Gearslutz discussion
I am having some opposition at this discussion, and apparantely one of them has threatened me w/blocking for the recent edits I made to Voodoo (D'Angelo album) and The Root concerning a video interview source and the Gearslutz source (only for Elevado's info on his own individual work). User:Jrod2 said "U cant use what Elevado said about Hunter at gearslutz or any other place period. It makes no difference if ya find another source; ya just cant add that type of content regarding LP". I would really appreciate some help. Dan56 (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the Biography of a Living Person rules are relevant here, it's not like the material is blasphemous or controversial. The Red Bull source is a primary source, so that's fine in this case I think. The Gearslutz source is not, it's a forum, but since Russ Elevado'swebiste links there it's probably OK in this case, even if it's borderline.
 * He has no reason to threaten you with blocking IMO. On the other hand, I also don't think the material is notable. Who cares if he had separate amps, honestly? If I were you I'd just drop the stick. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comments on WQA re:User:Unomi
Thanks for your comments at WQA regarding User:Unomi. This is the first time I've brought an issue to WQA, and I'm kinda underwhelmed by the response there. WQA doesn't appear to be all that useful. Do you think it would be worth it to bring this issue to ANI (or elsewhere), or should I just let it die at WQA? Snotty Wong  converse 16:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, no actions seems to ever be taken based on WQA, unfortunately. If the abuse continues, I would take it up on WQA. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean on AN/I. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review
Thanks for the review. It helps to know I'm on the right track. I've left a short reply to your comment on the review page. Thank you again, Rock drum Ba-dumCrash (Review me) 11:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Re. Answer
Thanks for the response, I do appreciate the advice. I'm curious as to how you were told there were no real attacks in there. Were they my words?

The insults, digs and name calling are in there. You may well have missed them, some have been edited out since, but they are there. If they start again I will raise a WQA correctly and include them.

I looked for the right location for advice and WQA seemed right in the circumstances. As you say it's not for advice and I note that for the future.

I guess the continued insults, digs and name calling has had an effect on me. Seriously though, I'm no martyr. I've no intention but to avoid this type of episode again. I think what I should have done is walked away, and stayed away. The stayed away part being the most important.

Thanks again. I'm moving on from this now. gonads 3  22:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you strike a comment you made?
This comment doesnt appear to be particularly helpful in reaching a consensus. Could you strike that as a "confidence building measure"?  Active  Banana   (  bananaphone
 * Not that it's going to make any difference, but sure. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  Active  Banana   (  bananaphone  20:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hrs
Your edit here was sufficiently inappropriate that I am blocking you from editing for 24 hrs.

Issues have reached the point that it is evident that you simply are unable to work within the community and within consensus on the List of wars between democracies page. If this continues after your block expires, I am going to be filing a community sanction request on WP:ANI asking that you be topic-banned from that article, and at administrators' discretion from any other geopolitical related articles where you edit in a manner disruptive to the normal functioning of the Wiki.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 24 hrs, for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not able to work collaboratively in the talk page there. I could list details, but the complete talk page history is sufficient evidence.

You may not be intentionally disrupting Wikipedia, but your actions there were clearly disruptive. Wikipedia has certain standards of behavior - Competence is required and Wikipedia is not therapy are essays which demonstrate the importance of actually being able to functionally get along with people, not just being well-meaning.

The particular comment you made was merely the tipping point.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The main problem on that page is Pmandersons refusal to listen and engage in constructive discussion. Cynwolfe and Elen had been baiting me for weeks, and it seems they finally succeeded. I'm sorry I made that mistake. I find your claims of incompetence absurd, and would like to you to provide examples of what you use as basis for that statement.
 * It seems like you have been the victim of a campaign on your talk page by those editors who doesn't want to agree with the emerging consensus on the talk page, where they say blatant falsehoods, like that I'm opposed by three quarters of the editors. You can see for your self on the last few days of discussion that this is simply not true. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been reading the article talk page every 2-3 days for the last ... when did this all start, a month ago now?
 * I understand that you feel the others are at fault. In my uninvolved opinion, however, you are the one who has not understood what you're doing and has been antagonizing everyone else, even if it's unwittingly.
 * Again, I have been reading the article talk page. This is not just a reaction to the upturn in discussion on my talk page.
 * There seems to be something fundamental you aren't getting in the interactions you're having on that talk page. Yes, in the course of the discussions several others have (in some cases repeatedly) gotten extremely frustrated with you and lashed out inappropriately, which they should not have done.  But there is a communications gap here of monumental proportions.  You do not seem to be able to get along with anyone, and you do not seem to understand that you have a problem or when you make particular comments or statements which are problematic.
 * Elen of the Roads is one of Wikipedia's most respectful, respected, calm, and stable users, and has been for many years. That you ended up in conflict with them is indicative of the magnitude of the problem.  PMA is known to be somewhat brusque, and I don't know a history on Cynwolfe or the others prior to this incident.  But Elen got involved to try and help stabilize things, and you managed to drive them nuts and angry at you.
 * I don't want to be cruel or rude. But you have demonstrated an inability to collaborate with people.  That is not an acceptable behavioral quality for participation in Wikipedia.  I am trying to communicate this and apply the least necessary force here - given the situation, I could stretch things as far as indefinitely blocking you right now on the grounds that you just don't get it, or I could have immediately filed for a topic ban from the article.  It is my hope that you will accept what I am trying to tell you and try and find a forum on Wikipedia that you can contribute in without finding yourself in conflict with others.  The short block and lack of further immediate sanction is designed to give you that opportunity.
 * This is not making me happy at all to have to tell you this. First, because it's never nice to have to say something like this, and particularly because others have at times been rather rude to you.  Second, you obviously care both about Wikipedia and about topics you're editing on.  But the situation is worse than when I previously intervened.
 * Please feel free to discuss this with others, administrators or other editors. We have a group that provides informal user mentoring and who may be able to help work with you to help you understand what it is that you're doing that causes communications to break down with others in the community.  Someone may individually be able to help you as well.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If Elen is calm and stable normally, that is very interesting. Take for example this: RS/N. In there I get two outside opinions, both agree with me. When I say so, Elen tells me to go to an Ophtamologist and then goes on to clearly misrepresent the outside opinions. That's something that has been going on all the time. They also continually, even though they no longer are a majority, nor have any arguments, claim that they are the "consensus". The discussion under "Some consensus (?) and change of lead" clearly shows that there is an emerging consensus. However, this goes against the extremist POV of Pmanderson, which is the basis for their rudeness. Despite this, they claim to form a consensus, which is clearly not true, but it seems you have fallen for this misconception. Cynwolfe and Elen has been lying through their teeth this whole debate, and now somehow that is my fault.
 * If anyone could point to anything I have actually done wrong (except letting myself get baited and hence providing an excuse for a block), that would be meaningful. But saying that I don't get along with anyone isn't, and ignoring the fact that Cynwolfe and Pmanderson has throughout their involvement here been nothing but disruptive and refused to listen to any sort of argumentation or compromise or come with any arguments except belittlement and lies, that is not helping. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Again:
 * I have been reading all of this, all along. I am not taking anyone's word for who's wrong or doing what to whom.
 * It is my independent conclusion that you are the focus of the problem. I again invite you to consider if you are suitable for editing Wikipedia right now - your response above indicates that you still do not get it and are not listening to me on what your problems are.
 * If you just reject my input and keep going, your Wikipedia career is going to be over soon. Again - I don't want that to happen, and I invite you to get a mentor or someone else's input and advice.  I'd much rather you steer away from this path.
 * If you keep pushing it after your block expires, as I said, I'll move for a community ban from the particular page that's currently causing problems. If that doesn't work you can be blocked permanently.
 * I would much rather you listen to the feedback that you have a problem, and that you need to talk to a mentor or someone else and get help for it. Blasting further sanctions at people who obviously want Wikipedia to do better is not pleasant.  Please listen.
 * Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, your only concrete and constructive input is that I get a mentor, so I'll so that. Maybe they can explain what I do wrong. Obviously I've gotten frustrated and angry, I know that, but I'm getting better at that and it doesn't seem to me that this is what you think is wrong, it's something else, but undefined what. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Bwilkins: The discussion has calmed down because the primary "baiter" has been blocked in this case. - I obviously talk about *before* that. The discussion has been much calmer and quite constructive for the last week or so. ''It is obvious that your actions led to escalation. '' - That's actually a good point. I assume this means that the battleground creator in your view is not the one who is incivil or first refuses to listen, but the one who points this out, and thereby escalates the problem? In that case I'm definitely at fault. With incivility I could get better at ignoring it, but when people are disruptive or just don't listen, then I still don't know how to handle that in a constructive way. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Notice: Allie74 Is not me.
Why would I create a user to avoid a block that expires in a couple of hours? Ridiculous. Cool down, people. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

PMA
With regards to your edits at ANI, leave it. Forget about PMA, seriously unless it is an actual content matter which involves you do not even comment. If you are unsure about something ping me on my talkpage. It is easier to avoid crap than to dig yourself out of it. mark nutley (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've dropped it already. Georgewilliamherbert are clearly on top of it. I have no idea what to do about the actual content issue, though... So I'm letting that rest to for the time being, hoping against hope somebody else can at least tag the article to show that it's full of POV. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you like the idea of wikipedia? mark nutley (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, do you have any other interests that you can work on here? And perhaps avoid pma for a while? mark nutley (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I already am avoiding him. Although he followed me to ABC80, and Cynwolfe to Viking Altar Rock‎. :-) But I don't mind. PMA is welcome to spellcheck my edits. :) --OpenFuture (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of BFG (web framework)
A tag has been placed on BFG (web framework), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Yousou (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

RE:BFG
It promotes the project and is not neutral. Are you involved with the project? If so; I'm afraid you're breaking WP:COI. Many Regards, Yousou (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It does not promote the project any more than any Wikipedia article would promote any project. No, I'm not involved. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

and Plone Community thanks to the Open Society Institutes KARL project was migrated from Plone to BFG.[3] It has also gathered a lot of interest in the rest of the Python community(weasel words), and the 'popular Pylons framework will move over to using BFG as a base in version 1.5.[4] Sentences such as this are the problem. Yousou (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * These problems are fixable (even by you) and no reason to mark it as spam or suggest it for deletion. Suggestions of rewritings are welcome. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. Do it yourself. I am merely just stating the status of the article. Yousou (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I already have. In any case: There are tags for weasel words, etc. Again: Calling it spam and suggesting speedy deletion is completely unfounded. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me tell you what speedy deletions are. They are basically when the creating editor has a certain amount of time to respond to constructive criticism of the article. After the amount of time, an administrator checks the article and accepts or declines it. Yousou (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I know what they are. It is in the case completely without merit, and you should remove it. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No. We should wait to see what an administrator thinks. Yousou (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I obviously can't force you to remove tags even when they have no merit, and even after I fixed the problems with the article, so I guess that's what we have to do. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I also recommend that statements like Like Zope are advertising due to the fact it's making comparisons like an advertisement. Some comparisons are good. But only when they are needed. Also when you state stuff like Andy (so and so) founded this in March 2008 when It makes it look too unencyclopedic, I might be wrong but; I want this article to stay up, it has potential. Yousou (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Trust me; "Like Zope" is no advertising in most circles. :) In this case the object traversal is directly inspired by Zope, so the comparison seems relevant. I guess that it's founded by Chris McDonough isn't really relevant, that's mostly just there to add information, so I guess it can go, although I don't see the problem with it. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If the article is going the way it is; It might escape CSD. :) Yousou (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems like the CSD was declined. Well done. Yousou (talk) 08:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help! --OpenFuture (talk) 09:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the usual stub now. A lot better than the original. Yousou (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Benedict Arnold
Hello, OpenFuture. I see that you made many technical adjustments to the article "Benedict Arnold (governor)" Did you do this because you are interested in the subject, and skilled in the ways of Wikipedia, or because you are an editor at large who goes around cleaning up articles? I ask this because I am a beginning Wikipedian, and this entire ordeal concerning references appears quite complex. I have greatly expanded the article on Benedict's father, William Arnold (settler), but the thought of re-doing all the references is a bit mind-boggling. Can you give me some insights? Many thanks, and thanks for all of the cosmetic changes to the Benedict article.Sarnold17 (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know how experienced I am, but I'm interested in the subject as a part of my interest in Pseudo-history. Yes, Wikipedia is complex, and references is one of the complex parts. Some basic hints: Use the macros, as "cite book", "cite webpage" etc. Although the cite style of having references separately and then referring to them is allowed, it's a bit complex to use, and you get this long list of exactly the same reference repeated many times. It's IMO better to use the reference style I moved to. It's not so daunting to do, but it does take time.
 * The main hint is that you can name references. Therefore you only do the reference once. So the first time you write . Then the next time you reference the same source, you just insert . You can either, as I did, do it one reference at a time, or you can convert the list of sources to cite macros first, and then later change every to.
 * That's it! Thanks for the good work on the Arnold articles! --OpenFuture (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks much for the reference help! I have the William Arnold article in the queue for re-assessment, and I would like to get the references wikipedeized before it gets rated.  Also, I'm curious--what is pseudo-history, compared with...history?Sarnold17 (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Claiming the Newport tower was built by Vikings and other nonsense like that. :) --OpenFuture (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see your point. I've just gotten started on fixing the references in the William Arnold (settler) article.  I only had time to put in two references, but I hit a snag when I tried to reference these references.  I got a cite error.  I tried to follow your example in the Benedict Arnold article.  Could you take a quick look and tell me why I am not able to cite  after the intial reference; I'm obviously doing something wrong.  Also, I don't understand your "nowiki" inclusion above.  Thanks.Sarnold17 (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The nowiki stops the cite working :) it is done so you can see the formating as laid out by OpenFuture And if you wish to use the same source but a different name the do Austin 1 Austin 2 and so on mark nutley (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry, I messed up one of the nowiki tags. Fixed now. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And ClamDip changed something to use the Shortened Footnote style. I personally don't like it that much, but it's a matter of taste I guess. I don't know if there are any specific policies or recommendations on which to use in which case. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My appreciation for the Shortened Footnote style is that it maintains a bibliography, and I'm old fashioned and like a bibliography. As a beginner, however, I will practice with both formats, and see how my preferences evolve.  I have a bunch of footnotes I need to add to this article, so will begin my practice there.Sarnold17 (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The Absolute Sound.
Greetings. I just wanted to say that if you thought the other template was more appropriate, that's fine with me. But in undoing my edit, you also undid a wikification of the article, which I had to redo because a bot had edited the article after you did. I hope you will please look over a user's entire edit before undoing it, in future. That's all. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, I'm sorry, Wikipedias shitty diff viewing hid it, so I didn't see that. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okey-doke, long as that's cleared up. Thanks! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Football players
Hi. With regards to a small edit you made on Patrick Vieira a couple of weeks back, the infobox statistics on footballers are only supposed to show appearences and goals in the league (Premiere League in this case) and not domestic or european cups. No big deal but I just thought I'd let you know if you're to edit footballer stats in the future. --Hst20 (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011
Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to The Venus Project. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. I added no unsourced content to that page, nor do I add unsourced content anywhere else.
 * 2. Using templates to warn established users is seen as rude. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy etc, etc, etc... --OpenFuture (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Gharr
I've created a new WP:ANI thread about Gharr, and since you were involved in the previous incident, you may wish to comment on the new thread as well. Zakhalesh (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Ideal wealth distribution
Dear OpenFuture. You sent me a talk msg that I had not complained about your abuse of psychology defending the deletion of this post. But you in fact respnded to my protests with your abuse on the discussion page for Ideal wealth distribution. So, how could you possibly say that I did not protest your attempt to delete the article? Your comments were rude, ill-informed and unprofessional. Of course with the deletion of the article, they are now also deleted. Did you know that they would be deleted and is that why you were so free to be rude? I assume you meant that I did not protest on the deletion page, but that is simply be cause I did not know that there was such a page, nor did I know that there was a vote going on. To those of us who do not participate in ongoing random deletions the process is completely opaque. However, we will learn, so do not think you are immune. Imersion (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, none of the things you say above about abuse or rudeness have any connection to reality. I have abused nothing and not been rude in any way whatsoever. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Ideal_wealth_distribution
Re your message: The talk page article has been deleted again and I left a note for Imersion on what they need to do to request a review. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --OpenFuture (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't make veiled threats on my page
You reverted my edit because you were unable to fully grasp her comment. I will contact her for clarification. I won't check this page so comment on my page if you want to further this discussion. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Answered: --OpenFuture (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Your post at ANI
Hi, I'm unsure what you found problematic about my edits mentioned here. The edit to Irkutsk referred to an error made just a few minutes before; the 'Auriga' edit inserted a number of dates didn't 'change' any of them. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, sorry, *insertions* of accessdate, then. I still don't see see that they should be done automatically. The Irkutsk changes does change the date formats: . Again, *I* don't mind those, but that kind of changes is what the original guy protested against, and he was dismissed by John with "he is wrong", which isn't very useful. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, as clearly indicated by the title of the thread, the complaint was the disappearance of yyyy-mm-dd dates; the dates were *changed* from mdy to dmy after FP pointed out I had left inconsistencies in an earlier edit. I'm still not sure I get your drift: Reflinks is the tool used to fill out the citations, and the dates are inserted automatically. I suppose it would be possible for me not to insert these, though it would cost me a few keystrokes. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, the complaint is about changing yyyy-mm-dd to other formats. You are saying you only unify formats, the complainer said you didn't. But the lack of diffs means it's hard to say if there was any merit to this. The addition of the accessdate is obviously the tools "fault" (or not fault) and not yours, so that is also cleared up then. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there OpenFuture, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:OpenFuture. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)