User talk:Rd232/archive1

Moved from user talk:rd232 on 19 October 2005

Precautionary Principle
I'm finding your continual revision of the Precautionary Principle to be biased towards putting the principle in a wholly positive light and making it seem as if it has been around for centuries and is a widely accepted best practice. What I'm working for is to make the definition as neutral (and contemporary) as possible, while relegating more controversial interpretations and connections to the criticism or other sections.

You seem to want to link the precautionary principle to medical precepts and legal standards that actually are not related and also preceded the principle by thousands of years... quote:

"Methodologies related to the precautionary principle may also be found in medicine ("first, do no harm") and law (convict when guilt is shown "beyond a reasonable doubt")."

They have nothing to do with the precautionary principle. It is not being applied when pharmeceutical companies do clinical trials -- if you want to make this connection, show show significant documentation. It is not being applied in the courtroom either. If you want to say that it grew out of those philosphies, then do so in your "medicine and law" section, but not in the definition -- and again, provide some references for your theories. You cannot, however, say that doctors (including those working for pharmaceutical companies) or judges are applying the precautionary principle, because they are not.

Secondly, deleting the section on the active implementation of the precautionary principle is also incorrect. I provided documentation to the 6 principles that have been defined by various organizations as the core of the principle; they are defined by organizations that believe in the principle, so it's not perjorative. You say this in your edit summary:

"preventative anticipation" is a pointless neologism; it's nearly always interpretable as the standard PP)

Yet, when you delete it, the definition in the article only describes a passive interpretation of the principle -- only "it is better to avoid that action" and not it is better to take action now than be sorry later.

A couple of style points:

1.) many of your edits have had little or no edit summary (sometimes when they are significant deletions, additions, or revisions)

2.) I think it defeats the point of defining a term when you feel the need to insert pithy colloquialisms into the first line or two of a definition. We are trying to give the reader a balanced and nuanced view of a term that has a significant amount of controversy and divergence of interpretations.  Quickie substitutions like "it's a generalized application of the Hippocratic Oath" do not serve this purpose well.

--eemcee

Akhenaten
Hi, what was your problem with the sentence "Aten's cult was the target of considerable official hostility after that."? That's an accurate description of things, no? (The rest looks good, by the way - the page needed a major cleanup, and it had been on my list to do for a long time, I just never found the time.) Noel 01:22, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PS: WIkipedia style is to reply on the talk page of the person who wrote to you, so they don't have keep keep an eye on the talk pages of everyone they have written messages to.


 * 1) Hi there, and welcome. Please provide a source for your recent addition on Akhenaten being black. (Otherwise, it looks like original research.) Rd232 19:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

When has one asked for a source to prove that Julius Caeser was white? Or that Confucius was Chinese in appearance? What you ask is not out of objectivity is it? Please explain your position. Do not remove my edit until then please thanks. -Zaphnathpaaneah

Wikipedia's official policy on original research states that in some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims that are easily verifiable by any reasonable adult, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events or Akhenaten's face).

2112
On the California electricity crisis - agree that there could be more and better discussion of role of energy companies (but note NPOV issues as seen in discussion on the Talk page there), including Enron. But how about adding the context instead of removing the statement, which was hardly so out-of-context or obscure as to need removing? Rd232 15:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

-

The paragraph:

"Enron CEO Ken Lay mocked these efforts to thwart the practices of the energy wholesalers, saying, ""In the final analysis, it doesn't matter what you crazy people in California do, because I got smart guys who can always figure out how to make money." Enron eventually went bankrupt, and Ken Lay is facing multiple criminal charges."

As a practical suggestion I believe that the article should include a foreshadowing of Enron's involvement, and that the paragraph should thenceforth read:

"During [source of discussion], Enron CEO Kenneth Lay commented that "In the final analysis, it doesn't matter what you crazy people in California do, because I got smart guys who can always figure out how to make money", his words caught [on medium]. This, and other comments, became public knowledge on [date] following the [publication of certain evidence] during the [name of trial] in which [outcome of trial]."

I state in advance that I know very little about the Californian electricity crisis, and that I reviwed the article in order to expand my knowledge. That paragraph did not seem to belong in what was otherwise a well-written, impartial piece. My thoughts were (a) what does Enron have to do with this? (b) 'mocked' seems very judgemental (c) to whom was Kenneth Lay addressing the quote? and (d) the postscipt, in which Enron receives its just deserts, also seems judgemental.

The impression I received was that the paragraph had been written by an opponent of Enron and Kenneth Lay, and that this opponent was so familiar with the case as to overlook that others, such as myself, might be ignorant. On balance, I judged that the article was better without the paragraph than with it.

I did not rewrite the paragraph because, as noted, I know nothing about the Californian electricity crisis. Furthermore, I was unwilling to put in the effort required to research the missing facts, for which I can only apologise. Ashley Pomeroy 15:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quick translation request
I don't know if there's a "standard" way to request this, but you are listed on Translators as being able to translate from German... So I'll just be bold and ask... If you have the time, can you have a look at Gustave Le Gray? I stumbled there while random-browsing, where somebody put an apparently interesting short paragraph in German that should only take a minute to translate to English.

Thanks! --Patrick Bernier 01:27, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)


 * Done. Rd232 08:43, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

=
=========================

Source of Enron's Ken Lay Statement: '...no matter what we “crazy people in California” did that he had people working for him at Enron that could figure out a way to make money."'

-- 'Allow me to share from my previous testimony the recollection of a long phone argument I had with Ken Lay in 2000 on the subject of price caps. I rejected his arguments and he said to me gleefully that no matter what we “crazy people in California” did that he had people working for him at Enron that could figure out a way to make money. I now realize just how true he was. Fat Boy, Death Star and the others were strategies that made Enron a whole lot of money."

-Page 4

"There is one fundamental lesson we must learn from this experience: electricity is really different from everything else. It cannot be stored, it cannot be seen, and we cannot do without it, which makes opportunities to take advantage of a deregulated market endless. It is a public good that must be protected from private abuse.If Murphy’s Law were written for a market approach to electricity, then the law would state “any system that can be gamed, will be gamed, and at the worst possible time.” And a market approach for electricity is inherently gameable. Never again can we allow private interests to create artificial or even real shortages and to be in control.

Enron stood for secrecy and a lack of responsibility. In electric power, we must have openness and companies that are responsible for keeping the lights on.We need to go back to companies that own power plants with clear responsibilities for selling real power under long-term contracts. There is no place for companies like Enron that own the equivalent of an electronic telephone book and game the system to extract an unnecessary middleman’s profits. Companies with power plants can compete for contracts to provide the bulk of our power at reasonable prices that reflect costs.People say that Governor Davis has been vindicated by the Enron confession.'

Testimony of S. David Freeman -Chairman of the California Power Authority

Before the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce and Tourism of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation

Wednesday, May 15, 2002

http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/051502freeman.pdf

and

'After a long phone argument with Ken Lay on the subject of price caps during which I rejected his arguments, he said to me at the end, not harshly but gleefully, that no matter what we “crazy people in California did that Enron had people working for him that could figure out a way to make money.” And they did.'

Before the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce and Tourism of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation

Thursday, April 11, 2002

http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/041102freeman.pdf

G'day
Just wanted to tell you that your doing a much better job on fixing the article Historicity of Jesus than I have been. Your work is much appreciated! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:27, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I do my best! :-) Rd232 12:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tucson, Arizona and more
Hi. I saw that you voted on the RFC regarding Tucson, Arizona, and I thought you might be interested in commenting on a broader application of the formatting to other city articles. The discussion (for now) is at Talk: Tucson, Arizona (It might get moved to WikiProject Cities, if there's interest in doing so.) Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 02:12, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ODA
Great work on the ODA / Japanese ODA article. It was something that sorely needed to be done, but that I never got around to. I might add something to the ODA article, whenever my broadband get's back up. Houshuang 10:46, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sewage Treatment
Hey - why the sudden division of this into two articles. This doesn't make much sense to those of us who have been working on it. How about reverting and lets have the discussion with Deirdre and other ? Velela 23:35, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Week
League of Nations is the new Collaboration of the Week. Please join in helping make it a feature article.

Minor edits
Hey, for typos, grammar, etc fixes you can click the "This is a minor edit" box, and people know they don't need to look at the change. Noel (talk) 21:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RJII is becoming more of a pest. We'll need to mind the 3RR on natural monopoly ourselves. I put in a request to have him blocked for 24 hrs BTW, excellent work on the article. 172 00:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alphonse Karr
Hey, I noticed you created Alphonse Karr while there already exists Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr from the 1911 EB. Just bringing this to your attention before listing this in duplicate articles page. jni 14:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Arse. The latter didn't show in Google Site Search (too recent, at 1 Jan 05), and the Wikipedia site search got stuck. I note we should use Alphonse Karr as this is the common usage. Rd232 15:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RE: James cleverly
Hey there. I untagged the above article as a CSD because, unless I'm mistaken, vanity/non-notable articles did not pass in the poll to expand the criteria for WP:CSD. If you believe that the article should be deleted, please sent it to WP:VFD. Thanks! PS: Sorry I'm so late, I sent it to the wrong user! -Frazzydee|&#9997; 00:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Peer review/Karl Marx/archive1
In order to make WP:PR more valuable, those listing articles for PR are expected to help implement suggestions they find. If not the articles should be removed from PR to make room for those with active collaboration. Please help by working with the suggestions given on PR for the article you listed. Thank you - Taxman 19:13, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * OK - I'd forgotten about the peer review. Rd232 07:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To do list
Could you add these two pages to your to do list, there is some extremely POV editing going on by TBSDY
 * 1 - and evidence of TBSDY's extreme POV editing there -
 * 2 - and evidence of TBSDY's extreme POV editing there -, , and most of all

Also note that the critical books removed are the more respected of the group, but the ones left in more dubious. The same goes for trying to tie all of the aspects to people like Hislop, Freke, and Gandy. Also note that Freke & Gandy's book was regarded by the Daily Telegraph as "an erudite and well researched book stuffed with controversial ideas", and so inserting only the CNN viewpoint is a heavy and POV attempt to discredit it.

Here are some links you might find useful for commenting on TBSDY
 * WP:RFC
 * WP:RFM
 * WP:RFAR

Thanks. Good luck. And don't give in. And just to check what is going on
 * WP:AN


 * I've just seen this. Please, feel free to review my edits! Also be aware that this is most likely CheeseDreams commenting, however she has been blocked for a day for editing articles related to Christianity (and thus violating the ArbCom order) and then blocked for a week for using someone to edit for her as a proxy. Oh, and also I suggest that you carefully look at the edit history. I did not remove the book reviews that talks about the "erudite and well researched books (etc)" comment. That was another user, not related to me! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:13, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Peer review/Karl Marx/archive1
Hi, I'm about to shift this to the archives. Are you still working on this or actioning it? I haven't seen a comment in a while! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:56, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Rd232, I've shifted that into the Peer review/January 2004 archives. Please, feel free to respond to the feedback and relist if you'd like to work on the article some more. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Natural monopoly
I've put a comment on Peer review/Natural monopoly/archive1. Hope this is helpful! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Just thought you should know that I'm going to place this into the archives now. I hope that you might be able to action my suggestions as I think this is a really good article that nevertheless could be a little clearer! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Peer review/Research/archive1
Have added a comment to this. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Rd, I'm going to archive this. If you still want some comments, then please feel free to relist it! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ibn Khaldun
Hello, I just saw that you translated my Ibn Khaldun article to English and asked on peer review about some points. If you get a little bit more specific we can try to clear this up (I haven't all the books with me anymore, but there may be some things I can look up or answer from memory). Second issue: I'm not sure, but in english the name is often transcribed as Ibn Khaldoun, we might move the article there. --Elian 23:54, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't remember specifics; I remember looking at some other internet sources which contradicted the German original and each other in some details; I think I gave up trying to figure things out and just stuck to translating. You're familiar with the material, so maybe it's worth exploring some of the internet sources around and see if there're issues that need addressing. Rd232 17:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The Khaldun spelling is more common according to Google, so let's stick to that. Rd232 17:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image:Uog.jpg marked for deletion
An image you uploaded, Image:Uog.jpg, has been listed for deletion because it does not contain source/copyright information and is not being used by an article. If you do not want the image deleted: If no action is taken on your part, the image will be deleted in 7 days. CanisRufus 02:01, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Update the image description page with source/copyright information as well as an Image copyright tag such as.
 * 2) Add a comment to its entry on Images and media for deletion explaining that you have provided the requested information.

Galloway
Wow. Well spotted on finding Galloway's name on M/08/35 and Zurayqat's on M/11/10. Curious that the US subcommitte didn't reference that first instance. I'm no fan of Galloway, but boy I think this committee have really screwed up here and I have to agree with Galloway, this looks like a schoolboy howler. Jooler 14:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Trade and Development
Hi, I see you have been busy. I know arguments about agriculture are flavour of the day, but I did wonder if a topic 'Trade and Development' was a bit heavy on agricultural content. I am very tempted to suggest that while being allowed to export agricultural production might be nice, a whopping great car plant and ancillary industries would be even better. I understand the arguments about the finances of agriculture, but I do wonder what exactly would happen if all subsidies etc. were abolished. I suspect that at least the wilder claims of improvement for non-developed countries would not be born out. A rise in world price would lead to a rise in world production.....It is commonly argued by EU farmers that they need subsidy and protection. It is by no means certain that this is true. The result might still only be cheap food for developed countries.Sandpiper 08:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chavez & "brother"
Thanks for your latest edit on the Chavez article. What you've got there now is fine by me. I'm glad we could come to something that I hope is agreeable to all interested parties.--67.101.66.159 22:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Times edits
While I appreciate your willingness to jump in and work on the Washington Times article I re-launched, I'm not as wild about the nature of your changes. Please see my remarks at the bottom of the "Extensive re-write" section of the Times discussion page, and also note that the old article text you seek to re-incorporate in large chunks was widely panned. LeoO3 30 June 2005 12:59 (UTC)

CAP
Hi, re common/normal CAP rules. There are at least three sets of rules. Those older members who get a full subsidy. The newer members who get 1/4 subsidy, and of course britain which just gets a refund. Which rules do you regard as 'common'? I regard the original ones, ie full subsidy for everyone as 'normal'. The plan is that everyone will get the same in a few years (at least, according to this article it is), but at the moment if there is a common set of rules, it is not how much subsidy people get? (sorry if I am getting obsessive)Sandpiper 1 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)

NDNAD
Sorry. The idea of creating two different articles with titles that differ only in the case of one letter seemed to me to be a recipe for confusion. One article is untouched, the other is at UK National DNA Database. -- RHaworth 2005 July 2 08:01 (UTC)

Kurdistan Workers Party
Thanks for your input and I definately agree. - FrancisTyers 4 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)

Global warming impacts and mitigation
Great job on these and related articles! I'm not up with the play on reinsurance agencies, so I can't add much on them, but they're chiming in on both of these angles. Munich Re and Swiss Re, in particular. FYI. Cheers, Daniel Collins 4 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)

Kurdistan Workers Party
I noticed your comments on the PKK talk page. I'm currently attempting to correct grammatic and POV errors in the text, and have provided a diff on the talk page showing an initial series of edits. If you'd take a look at it, I would appreciate it.--Scimitar 19:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article is in horrible shape. My current hope is too go through the sections and fix the format, than discuss the sections one by one to clean up POV problems. I'm also thinking about trying to get more sections removed. I suppose that the difference between our viewpoints is that I think the backbone of the article is a workable platform and can be saved. That may just be naivete, though :). Anyhow, if you have any comments or assistance to offer, I'd appreciate it. Thanks for the reply. If this doesn't work than a new draft of the article may very well be in order.--Scimitar parley 17:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Coercion
Hi. On the discussion page of the article I have dropped a note on your latest contribution, and I am now interested in your comments, before going on to a new edit. --Mario 17:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Statism and RJII
I have left a note on RJII's talk page cautioning him to Be civil and in particular not to make the claim on the RfC page that another editor is "lying". If you are willing to write up an RfC on user conduct against him, I will certify it as having tried to deal with the conduct.

I hope that that is not necessary. Robert McClenon 10:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Egyptian mythology
According to the Turin King List, ten gods had ruled Egypt - Ptah, Ra, Su, Seb, Osiris, Set, Horus, Thoth, Ma, Horus

Who is Ma?     ( ! | ? | * )

Political religion
While it seems I've been mistaken in suggesting that the concept is original research, and will change my vote accordingly, the article content itself is problematic. It is clear from the article about him that Eric Voegelin's ideas on the subject are eccentric to say the least, and don't represent mainstream opinion, however there is no mention of that anywhere in political religion. If the article is to be retained it should begin by explaining that the idea is a non-mainstream theory supported one or two political scientists, and is of questionable significance.--Gene_poole 03:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we are having an edit conflict. I will restore your changes, my apologies for any inconvenience. Coqsportif 11:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for helping over at Sms.ac
I'm not sure if it's because you saw my RFC, but thanks for coming to help. Themindset 19:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

drastic cleanup
Votes for deletion/Actual effects of invading Iraq. I've been bold, thought you might like to vote. --Doc (?) 23:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio is not speediable
Hi, copyvio is not a candidate for speedy deletion, please use copyvio tags for that. Kappa 11:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism of Open Outsourcing Article
I'm curious as to why you chose to delete half of the article I had written as well as marking it as not meeting the standards of quality of Wikipedia? I worked hard on the article, and I'd like to know what you disliked about it so much. Let's please discuss this politely on the Discussion page of Open outsourcing KellyCoinGuy
 * I replied on talk:open outsourcing. Please don't throw around words like vandalism. Rd232 20:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't surrender to trolls!
...especially when you're not alone. The statism article does not belong to RJII, and we must not surrender it to him. Giving up in frustration is exactly what a troll wants you to do. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Flags_of_non-sovereign_nations
You are raising valuable points at Talk:Flags_of_non-sovereign_nations. Especially the main discussion seems to be about the question, if a nation is a nation, and not about the flags. Earlier I had suggested splitting the page into meaningful parts, but this was not implemented. I am currently in the process of splitting the page (and in the end making the original page superfluous), so bear with me, and please support me, if controversies arise. --Mevsfotw 13:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Spanish in Trinidad
I was wondering what the source for the figure of only 1500 Spanish speakers in Trinidad. It seems extremely low to me, especially taking into account Venezuelans, Colombians and Cubans resident in TT. Guettarda 15:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate hurricane text
I've removed the duplicate text on global warming. No one alleges that Katrina specifically was caused by global warming any more than any of the other recent storms. I've also added a link to the cyclones page so people can see the full scientific explination of how such storms form. --24.165.233.150 20:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina
We just made similar additions at the same time - look further down the article! -- BD2412 talk 23:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Global Warming
Take a look at my comment on User Talk:Soir. I'll extend my challenge to you as well, find me a single notable citation where it is claimed that Katrina specifically was caused by global warming. You won't. No one is claming that, even the media won't go that far. What is being claimed is that there may be relationship between the intensification of tropical cyclones and global warming, which few disagree with although almost everyone with credentials thinks any effect at this point would be in the noise. I'm quite happy posting to an IP, and I'll continue to edit to articles to remove inaccurate as I wish, thank you very much. 24.165.233.150 23:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "a question raised by many media", as I asked. Cite it. No one, except some misguided Wikipedia editors is claiming that Katrina specifically was caused by global warming in a way that other storms have not been. --24.165.233.150 00:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The question has been seriously raised by theLA TIMESCNN Boston Globe, TIME, USA TODAY and the question belongs in articles about specific natural disasters. End of story. --Fluxaviator 02:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read what you are linking to? Every single one of them was clearly speaking about recent weather patterns in general. For example, the first one you linked says "Is the rash of powerful Atlantic storms in recent years a symptom of global warming?". The text belongs the article on tropical cyclones. End of story. --24.165.233.150 18:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I have read them and they state that global warming was a factor in causing Katrina, especially the Globe article. --Fluxaviator 19:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The globe article lists almost every major weather event of the last year, some eight events in total, and equally attributes all of them to global warming. In light of that how can you claim that that article was claiming that Katrina was affected in a way that other Tropical cyclones are not? --Gmaxwell 19:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not claiming that. I'm only claiming that the question of global warming should be at least mentioned on all the pages that deal with those eight events, including Katrina. That's all I'm saying. --Fluxaviator 19:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

False
"Since an anon user insists on repeatedly deleting the global warming section, falsely claiming the material is in tropical cyclone, I post a link to a recent version which includes it here." ... The material has been in tropical cyclones since prior to the creation of the causes article. I would like to request that you move your inaccurate comment to the talk page of the VFD and post a correction. --24.165.233.150 18:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I replied to your reply back on User Talk:24.165.233.150. Thanks --24.165.233.150 20:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

King Tut
Hi. What's a "broken link"? Further, I find it curious that you've warned me about an edit war, but there's no record of you leaving anything on the talk page of User:Petrograd, who has been extremely antagonistic, intemperate and utterly irrational in his/her reverts of my perfectly reasonable edits. Further, I have provided substantial justification for my edits on the talk page -- which cannot be said for Petrograd, who has done nothing but complain about "Afrocentrism." (See the talk page "Grow up.") deeceevoice 19:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's keep this back-and-forth on one page, shall we? See you back at User talk:deeceevoice. Peace. deeceevoice 20:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

anon Tut vandalism
207.188.79.177 is back at it again. Jim Apple 15:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And again today. DreamGuy 21:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And the same anon IP account has done it again and again and again... on his talk page you said that if he continued he would be treated as a vandal and banned... seeing as how no other edits are made by this user and they obviously have no intention of stopping the insertion of highly POV material, I would think that is a logical solution. DreamGuy 20:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've not actually had to get to the formal banning process before. I've added a final warning to his userpage; if he does it again, list him at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Rd232 07:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

West Germany
sorry i figured linking to Bonn was correct - South Vietnam has a link to Saigon/Ho Chi Minh City and East Germany has a link to East Berlin. PMA 21:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

McKitrick/JG
Re the "scare quotes" on McK: it looks to be the work of banned JonGwynne: see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute. Can't remember if you were involved in that stuff. William M. Connolley 09:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC).

WikiProject Business and Economics
Hi, considering your large contributions to business and economics related topics, would you be interested in joining WikiProject Business and Economics? It was started recently, so it requires some people to chip in. Thanks. -- Pamri &bull; Talk 07:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:VFA
"Vote here" redirect isn't working for your section. --hydnjo talk 16:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Trolling? re: U.S. Energy policy Act of 2005
Hello, you [wrote] : Is this in any way true? The linked Energy Policy Act page says nothing about it, for one thing, and for another, the Administration's policy is that atmospheric CO2 is not to be regarded as undesirable until there's "better science". Beanluc 20:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "The Bush US presidential administration is committed to carbon capture (see Energy Policy Act of 2005)."
 * I see that you simply re-wrote what 216.164.138.57 had written. Unfortunately that's someone who I can't ask. I'm sorry for suggesting that you were the troll - I guess I'll remove the sentence. I don't necessariuly know that it's untrue but the anonymous post and the bogus citation suggest non-credulity. Beanluc 19:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Re:Requests for adminship/rd232
Sigh, ok. Let's see if we can resolve this. You definately have enough edits, but being an admin gives you powers that may cause problems irrelevant to article experience. That's what I want to figure out. Here's my questions.


 * 1) You disagree with the edits of another user on a hotly contested article, and the edits are not Vandalism. If you don't step in, a non-admin user will and there will be a mess because it's a hotly contested article. What do you do?
 * 2) How many Barn Stars or other related awards have you given to other users who were deserving of praise, and would you say that your experience with other users has been positive or negative, explaining why.
 * 3) I believe I asked you to contact me on my talk page to further discuss this in an attempt to try to end any potential conflict. You didn't, so I feel like I have to step above and beyond and come to you. Will people who want to resolve conflicts have to do this as well, or will you be more proactive?
 * 4) Being a wallflower isn't a bad thing either, if it's done productively and in concert with those who don't share your style of editing. If you shy away from the social side of Wikipedia, what will you do if there's an editor who sees things in a different way than you do in an article and does use the social side of Wikipedia, or as some people call it, "The Cabal", to try and reason with you? Will you be open to their suggestions if they are valid and NPOV, or will you feel threatened because you are unused to their style of editing?

I want to vote for you, but i'm not going to do so until i'm absolutely sure that you're not going to go all robot on me if you're caught in a sticky situation with another user over a grey area. Karmafist 01:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Cool, Congrats
Thanks, I thought my RfA was closed anyway, but apparently I still have to wait. Oh well.

I apologize if I offended you also with the "robot" comment, let me explain with a quote from the RfA page... Admins should be courteous and should exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with others. Robots can be very courteous, but their judgement is only as good as the people who program them, which often is horrible. Like it says above, good judgement is necessary when dealing with other users. A block in some instances might be the right move, and in other instances it might just sow more dischord where the dilemma could have been solved easier.

I'm beginning to see another split in Wikipedians that I talked about with Mamawrites' talk page the other day between what I coined "Meta-Wikipedians" or "Metapedians"(Users who are more interested in the internal workings of Wikipedia) and "Exo-Wikipedians" or "Exopedians" (Users who are more interested in the non-Wiki related data that is portrayed on Wikipedia -- articles and pictures mostly.) You struck me as an Exopedian, and while that's ok, when you're an admin, I think it's necessary to at least be capable of crossing that divide if needed. Karmafist 17:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh Yeah, Forgot to Do This
I give barns to people who I vote for at RfAs. Congrats! Karmafist 06:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!
I'm pleased to inform you that you are now an administrator. Please consider reading all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. Though everything you do, excluding image deletions and page history merges, is reversible, you should nevertheless be very careful with your sysop capabilities. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Good luck! &mdash; Dan | Talk 16:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, you rotter, I never got a chance to vote for you. Sorry. William M. Connolley 16:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC).


 * Congrats on adminship.    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   23:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)