User talk:Romarin/Archive 1

Temporary project site: Genealogy (Cancelled)
So, I had planned to start a new WikiProject on Genealogy, but I recently found out that there already is one! It's called WikiTree and you can find it here if you're interested.

Sorry to anyone who was interested in the new WikiProject, but WikiTree is even cooler. Really.

Re: Feminism userboxes
I don't know why you could possibly think it's any of your business to go and delete userboxes that you don't agree with for personal reasons. Please restore the feminist userboxes immediately, or at least explain why you have deleted them. Did a feminist piss you off once? Or do you just hate women? Regardless of the reason, there is no justification for thinking that it is your right to control what userboxes other individuals choose to use. I await your response, and the restoration of the userboxes that you have stolen. Romarin 17:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Romarin: I am sorry that you disagree with my deletion of those userboxes. Wikipedia works on the principles of collaboration and discussion, and no deletions except for images are irreversible; I am always willing to reconsider and re-evaluate decisions that I make, especially where others have an interest in them. I am grateful for your feedback.


 * In response to the above, I would like to make it perfectly clear to you that I have no like or dislike of feminists as a consequence of their views - nor do I as a consequence of any other political methodology - and that I consider equality across gender to be of paramount importance in society. I have absolutely nothing against feminists as individuals, and most emphatically do not hold discriminatory views against women. I cannot stress that point to you enough. I would say that your ad hominem accusations that I had any personal agenda on the matter, or indeed that I hate women, are beyond the realms of acceptability on your part and are quite unjustified. Please assume good faith of other Wikipedia editors, especially where bad faith is not evident. I'd like you, if it may perhaps place your allegations of misogyny on my part at rest, to please check through my contributions and determine for yourself whether any discussion or other editorial participation that I have engaged in demonstrates evidence of such a charge. I am confident that this is not the case. I must also aver that Wikipedia editorial decision-making should never be taken as a basis on which to accuse someone of holding a particular viewpoint.


 * As a Wikipedia administrator, it is my duty to maintain an environment for the creation of articles that conform to the NPOV policy, and also to create an environment where editors are not personally discriminated against on the grounds of gender, beliefs or opinion. I consider that a userbox to advertise feminism has specific undesirable connotations in regard to the promotion of discrimination against Wikipedia users who are not female; in addition, the potential for the userboxes to be misused in POV bloc voting via the "What links here" button on the templates is too great to ignore. Feminism does not in my personal view have any place on Wikipedia, except in encyclopaedic articles describing the subject. Likewise I do not consider my personal views to have any bearing on the work that I do, and would never allow my own personal convictions to affect the way that I would either treat other users nor as to my level of conformance with Wikipedia policies. It gives the incorrect impression that the maintenance of discriminatory points of view is acceptable when editing Wikipedia to allow such templates to exist, which is not the case. As the founder of Wikipedia, User:Jimbo Wales, wrote:


 * "Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian."


 * On that basis I believe userbox templates that promote feminism would clearly fall under the CSD T1 criteria of being "divisive or inflammatory", and thus consider my action in deleting those userboxes to be perfectly justified for the good of the project. Regarding that you consider I have no justification to take the act of deleting userboxes into my own hands - as a Wikipedia administrator, I consider it to be my duty to keep levels of discrimination and POV bloc voting as low as possible, as I am entrusted with the maintenance of the good of the project by the community. I have "stolen" nothing; indeed, if a harsh description was necessary, "destroyed" would perhaps have been more apt. I do hope I have perhaps clarified my decision somewhat to you. Please do feel free to contact me on my talk page, or indeed via e-mail, should you have any further concerns. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response, which is indeed elloquent. However, your agruments and reasonings do not seems to me to be entirely logical. First of all, if you are, as you state, against userboxes that promote POV, and not against feminism, then why pick on feminism alone? Why are the pacifist, environmentalist, and anti-racist userboxes still available? Why are political boxes and religious boxes still available? These topics are all just as subjective, and as potentially "divisive and inflammatory", as feminism.


 * Secondly, how can the useage of a feminist userbox be discriminatory againt users who are not female? Feminism is, as it explains in the Feminism article, a movement for equality between the sexes. There is a userbox for males who support feminism. This one, I have just noticed, was deleted since my first message to you earlier. I would ask why you did this in hindsight; why not from the beginning? Do you (or did you, before you were called on it) feel that it is ok for men to support feminism on Wikipedia, but not for women to do so?


 * Having a userbox for feminism is, in my view, an educational tool. The userbox links to the article Feminism, and so anyone who is interested in clicking on the link from someone's userbox is then taken to the article where they can learn for themselves that the feminist movement is about political, economic and social equality for women and men. In my opinion, people who consider feminism to be a "divisive and inflammatory" topic are doing the movement a grave disservice. Regardless of your feelings toward feminists or toward women, your negativity toward the education of both women and men about what feminism is will only further a general negativity toward the movement itself, and toward those who identify with it. This, not the presence of userboxes, creates a devisive and inflammatory environment. I would therefore argue that by censoring access to educational information regarding the feminist movement, you are, despite what you say, demonstrating a personal bias against it.


 * Let it be stated for the record that I appreciate your efforts as an administrator to do what you believe is right for the Wikipedia community. However, I do not feel that you are on the right path, for the reasons stated above. I would also warn you that in your quest to eliminate POV, despite what you say, you may be seen as furthering your own biases by many more in the community than just myself. --Romarin 20:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Feminism userboxes undeleted
Dear Romarin: Based on discussion with yourself, User:IronChris and others, I have undeleted the feminism userboxes. I did so primarily because although I do not personally believe that POV userboxes are desirable, there is a legitimate case to be made for a feminism userbox having some value as regards encyclopaedic work for feminism-related articles, so in the interest of assuming good faith unless all similar userboxes are deleted it would not seem justifiable to speedy delete the feminism userboxes. I'm most grateful for the time you took in elaborating to me the specific issues in play relating to this matter. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Nicholas, for replacing the feminism userboxes, and for letting me know the reasoning behind your decision. I greatly appreciate the time you took to respond to my arguments, and to those of User:IronChris; I also appreciate the civil manner in which such responses were delivered. It is a difficult task at times to pass judgment on what constitutes as acceptable or unacceptable POV, without falling into the POV trap oneself, and it takes strength to admit when one has made a mistake in that regard. In my opinion, it is always safest to air on the side of access to information, because learning furthers understanding. There are few cases that demonstrate this point as clearly as that of the feminist movement, which is extremely stigmatized, and consistantly boxed into a discourse of divisiveness and extremism, due to a lack of general access to unbiased information. Yes, identifying as a feminist is an expression of a point of view, there's no denying that fact. But identifying as a feminist for the purpose of helping to educate interested others about the reality of a movement that is generally hidden from the public eye is, in my opinion, a necessary step in the long journey toward gender equality. Again, thank you for taking the time to think this matter through, and for your restoration of the feminism userboxes. --Romarin 01:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hypocrite
This User is so upset about what Nicholas Turnbull did regarding userboxes yet yhis user has deleted factual modifications by user billcica based on this user's own biased oppinion. This user has a box clearly stating her possition on feminism but still removed facts from women's rights and other related topics. This is biased and hypocritical and can't be allowed. The facts removed were said to be POV, or of billcica's point of view and not of a factual basis. While the lines deleted were clearly provable, verifiable facts. If this user had taken the time to look into these facts this user would have known not to use her own bias to delete important and often over looked facts. This user said the facts were deleted because wikipedia.org doesn't include "points of view," while the facts this user chose to delete clearly show this user's point of view. Her imposing of hypocritical beliefs on all of the wikipedia members shouldn't be allowed. Ask user billcica if any of the facts this user deleted were untrue or unverifiable. Make sure you get the truth from someone who knows and not from closed minded hypocrites.

(the above was posted by User:Billcica)


 * Thank you for at least putting your complaint on the correct page, rather than insisting on vandalizing userpages. However, it is customary to add comments in chronological order, from top to down, so I have moved what you posted at the top of my page to here.


 * Secondly, I am not even going to bother answering all of your "issues" here because they are completely rediculous. If you are going to attempt to be a Wikipedian, please learn how things are done around here first. Otherwise, you will be facing an inevitable block.


 * Thirdly, if you insist on putting "facts" onto Wikipedia articles, you MUST cite your sources. Without citation, there is no way to know the factuality of a statement, and ANYTHING, no matter what it is or who says it, will be deleted if it is not properly sourced. This has nothing to do with biases.


 * Finally, to delete information from your own user talk page is certainly your perogative, but it is not standard Wikipedia policy. Besides, anyone can look at your history to see that you are deleting complaints posted against you, which looks like you have something to hide. I am copying this message onto your user talk page, as it involves you as well and should not only reside here.


 * In closing, please stop the vandalism, and please try to remain civil. We are all trying to build a great encyclopedia here, and name-calling just wastes time and energy. --Romarin 23:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I only know about this from the note on WP:AN/I and some minimal looking at User:Billcica's edits. I see no vandalism, just a wanton disregard for WP:CITE (and an ignorance of how we use talk pages here).  Uncited, POV edits are bad, and should be removed, but they're not vandalism - let's not WP:BITE the newbie.  Just demand citations for the "facts" in question.  Then nobody has room for accusations of POV, etc. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your prompt response. However, I would urge you to look at what this user has done to his talk page, and to look more in-depth into what he has done to the talk page of User:IronChris. If these don't constitute as vandalism, I don't know what does. Also, if you will look in his talk page history (it is no longer on his talk page since he deleted all complaints that were posted against him) you will see that I responded to his original posts in a friendly manner, especially since I saw that it was his first day on Wikipedia. I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and he came back with blatant personal attacks and user page vandalism. Please give this another consideration. Thank you. --Romarin 00:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Against WP:MOS
Please note that your WikiProject regarding the eradication of Anno Domini is against the WP:MOS and all edits you/other users make will be reverted. The MOS states that one must not alter BC/AD to BCE/CE (or vice versa) within an article unless there is a discussion and concensus to change. I suggest you dissolve your WikiProject as it will not succeed &mdash; CRAZY `( IN )` SANE 00:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the note, as I was not aware of this. However, after looking at the page you pointed me to, I can't say I interpret these guidelines the same way. It says:


 * Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article.


 * and then:


 * When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change.


 * First of all, no mention is made of coming to a concensus. Secondly, the fact that Wikipedia is an international resource, and should reflect an international, pan-cultural and pan-religious voice, seems to be substantial enough reason for the change. Just as the page then goes on to give an example of spelling the English way in articles relating to English subjects, and the American way in articles relating to US subjects, I would not consider it "substantial reason" enough to change the way eras are notated in pages relating to Christianity or Judaism. Other pages that do not have a connection with the Judeo-Christian religions, however, are subject to change, thereby removing religious biased terminology. If there is an article that is ambiguous for any reason with regard to whether or not it should be changed, then rest assured that the talk page will be used to reach a concensus. Thank you for your concern. Romarin 00:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that "Wikipedia is an international resource, and should reflect an international, pan-cultural and pan-religious voice" is a substantial reason for changing BC/AD to BCE/CE is contradictory to the very link I directed you to. At WP:DATE, as you acknowledge, it states "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article.". This showcases that the official position of Wikipedia on whether BC/AD or BCE/CE should be used within any article is that both are of equal value and thus should not be changed unless there is substantial reason, a reason which can obviously not be that "oh, I believe BCE/CE is better than BC/AD"&mdash; because Wikipedia supports both. &mdash; CRAZY `( IN )` SANE 01:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking such an interest in this subject. However, I am going to deal with User:Knowledge Seeker on the matter from here on out, as this user has shown a greater understanding of the subject matter (as seen on the temporary project talk page), as well as having shown good faith, which is important to keep when discussing potentially controversial topics. Furthermore, I see that you take quite an interest in discrediting the use of Common Era terminology. In the interest of remaining civil, I would suggest that you and I are not the best individuals to be discussing this. Finally, please refrain from assuming my gender. Romarin 02:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand, Knowledge Seeker is known for his patience and understanding. He would be best to deal with. However, I cannot locate any comment that I made that refers to your gender? If you can refer me to this I will alter the comment. &mdash; CRAZY `( IN )` SANE 02:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your cooperation. The comment was in your message to User:Knowledge Seeker. I don't really care if you alter it or not; just a note of caution that you should never assume. Romarin 02:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Romarin and CIS. I apologize that professional obligations did not permit me time to address this matter more fully yesterday. I see that some discussion has taken place and so I am unsure what your current understanding is; I shall just make some broad observations. Feelings run high on both sides of this debate, and as I believe you have seen by now, there has been some extensive discussion in the past. There are quite strong arguments for and against both schemes, and I am uncertain which scheme is better for me personally or for Wikipedia in general. Of course, my opinion alone matters little. If I may be so bold as to guess the general feeling on Wikipedia, I would summarize it as follows: There is no consensus for using or excluding either method. Significant discussion has failed to resolve this and most people are not interested in re-opening the discussion (of course, you are still welcome to challenge old decisions—they are not binding forever). In general, as for many areas where different styles are possible, the style of the first major author tends to set the trend for the article, and it should certainly be self-consistent. Styles may be changed, but not on a whim; and anyone systematically changing styles will probably meet opposition at best or a block or ban at worst. The reasons an article's style might change are a bit nebulous. A consensus of editors on the talk page may agree. Or, if the style has been changed and has been unchallenged, that may be considered acceptance as well. Articles on Christianity or Christian mythology tend to use BC/AD. Articles dealing with other religions or with nations where Christianity is minor tend to use BCE/CE. More of the older articles on Wikipedia use BC/AD, although there may be a slight trend to use BCE/CE in newer articles, perhaps in part due to a couple high-profile editors attempting to systematically change articles to BC/AD (one of whom was banned by the arbitration committee from performing further changes). Perhaps other users will correct me if my assessment is incorrect. I recognize you feel strongly about this issue, and if you like, you may attempt to reopen discussion on the matter. However, I don't think your WikiProject is the way to go. As it is currently written, its directives are not compatible with current Wikipedia practice, and I cannot easily see how the purpose of the project could be suitable redefined. In addition, I think that many people will be opposed to a WikiProject dealing with a specific point of view, as opposed to a specific topic (like military history or medicine). I hope I was able to express matters clearly. Please tell me how I may be of further assistance. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Esperanza!
Welcome, Romarin, to Esperanza, the Wikipedia member association! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is the StressUnit, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Possibles.

I encourage you to take an active voice in the running of Esperanza. We have a small government system, headed by our Administrator general, Celestianpower, and guided by the Advisory Committee comprised of JoanneB, FireFox and Titoxd. The next set of elections will be in April, we will keep you updated about the results. Because you are a new member, you are not able to vote in these elections, but you will be more than welcome to take part in the elections in June.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Celestianpower by email or talk page or the Esperanza talk page. Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, you may find help at an IRC Tutorial written by one of our members. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!

I Lov  E Plankton 18:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. I  Lov  E Plankton 22:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:PimpMyPage
I'm sorry it offended you. I changed the wording, but as of this message, I still have to move it from its current title. Please understand that my intention was humor, I have no desire to insult anyone on wikipedia.-- The  i  kiro  id  (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 22:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

ENOUGH
Stop mingling in the affairs of other people. And dont pretend you are right or anything when you havent even tried to argue my points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Expertist (talk • contribs)

fixed
I thought I'd let you know here that I fixed your template. You can see the result at Wikipedia_talk:Esperanza/Images. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 22:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)   If you respond, do so on my talk.
 * Uh, thanks... I guess. I added you to my userboxes! ~Linuxerist E/L/T 00:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Members of WikiProject Gender Studies?
Just wondering if you wanted your userbox, User WikiProject Gender Studies, to add the people to Category:Members of WikiProject Gender Studies. Seems like a good idea to me, unless you're concerned about going overboard on categorizing... Cheers --Singkong2005 11:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea... not sure how to do it though! Do you know? Otherwise I'm sure I can find out... Thanks for the suggestion. rom a rin[[image:Rosemary white bg.jpg|15 px]] [talk to her ] 16:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

COTW Project
You voted for Storm, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. PDXblazers 23:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:WPOR : Oregon
Thanks for being a part of WikiProject Oregon. Our first article we'll be improving to FAC status is, oddly enough, Oregon! Please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon to discuss the contributions you can make to improve Oregon to a FAC level article. the iBook of the Revolution 04:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiLove


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Go Bearcats
Finally, another Willamette alum! Glad you're here! -Big Smooth 22:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was there from 1995-1999 (was it that long ago?). As an Econ major, I didn't take many Anthropology or Art classes... although Ann Nicgorski was my World Views professor. :) I loved my experience at Willamette.  I just joined WP:WPOR, so maybe I'll see you around in some articles. -Big Smooth 23:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Women's rights article
Hi Romarin - thanks for your message! Please keep working on the women's rights page when you have more time. I wasn't really sure what to do with it, but the shape it was in was bugging me so I figured I'd give it a shot. By the way, I like your userpage: not enough people appreciate olive green! Sasha Kopf 15:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

re:wikismile, thanks!
Thanks for the wikismile!--Andrew c 04:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Greetings from Oregon!
I appreciate the removal of the derogative word "vermin" from the Oregon article, it's the kind of thing that bothers me as well. I noticed we share some common interests, and I just thought I'd say you do the Northwest proud! :) Sarge Baldy 01:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Portland to Montreal
Hey Romarin,

I find it interesting that you went from Portland to Montreal. I've gone the opposite way (at least for a little time). I originally lived near Montreal, then moved to Toronto, and for two summers went to Portland for work. How did you choose to go to Montreal, and go to a French university, as it's not the normal course for Americans to come up here. Regards. -- Jeff3000 18:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikidude54
I just want to briefly thank you for the civility and patience you have shown towards User:Wikidude54. So long as they seem responsive to your advice, I will avoid filing a WP:3RR violation notice or otherwise bringing admins into this. Al 18:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: Willamette Article
Wow, good eyes. Sorry, I forgot about editing that field and hastily removed the picture. I'm kinda bad about not using the preview button. --Phoenix Hacker 00:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Your signature
Hi. I came accross some comments you left on another page, and noticed that you have a small image in your signature. According to our signature guidelines, images should never be used in signatures. Could you please remove it? Thanks. Exploding Boy 17:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Civil Partnerships
Having seen your contributions on the Discussion page for the deletion of Opposition To Homosexuality, I like your straightforward approach. I wonder if I could ask you cast you eye over a similar sort of problem (interestingly, also involving the user Ros Power) on the Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom article?

Ros Power repeatedly deleted the phrase 'same-sex couples' from this article and eventually, she got her way (probably because everyone just got fed up!) Her arguments for deleting this phrase seem specious and similar to those employed when defending her current anti-gay article. As the 'same-sex couples' phrase is used freely elsewhere on Wikipedia when discussing civil partnerships and unions, I can see no good reason not to use it on the CP article.

However, I could well be wrong and I'd certainly appreciate your opinion. if you have one, of course! :-) ReformedCharacter 15:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your quick and courteous reply. It does seem a bit unfair that this one user is causing so many people such annoyance.  Does it consitute vandalism?  No idea.  Anyway, good to know someone else is also going to keep an eye on the civil partnerships article.  ReformedCharacter 16:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. An edit war is the last thing I wanted!  I will follow your advice and abie by whatever the committee decides.  ReformedCharacter 16:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:Marytrott
You just happened to catch me by the keyboard ;) I debated an indef-ban the first time for this user, but decided to see if something shorter would get the point across. The edit today made it clear that this one was not to be. Thanks for keeping on it! RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Civil Partnerships
Unfortunately the issue was not resolved by either party - bit refused to compromis whic was a shame. In the end we decided the best course of action was to massively cull the first paragraph so no-one could argue over it. I also suuggested they go to the arbitration commitee to get a full and final hearing - if they did so wish. Im not sure either of them did so I suppose that is the end of the matter. They both appear to be happy with the current revision so I guess that I could count the matter resolved.

TBH i have little prior knowledge of the issue / article anyway I was just a ley mediator.-- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote) talk 09:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:Alienus
I've finished going through everything; I'm inclined to believe I'd've blocked Alienus for 48 hours. Yes, he feels ganged-up on, but there'd already been a block for the same thing, and continuing in that vein afterwards rather than take the issue to a neutral forum for review is worthy of a block. If 3 days is harsh, and I'm inclined to think it is, it's not harsh enough that I would object, other than to note what I've said here. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.
Thank you for speaking out in my defense. It seems that, contrary to policy, Tony Sidaway failed to open up on an incident report on WP:ANI. Of course, I wasn't able to post anything, so it was a very good thing that you brought the topic up. Again, thanks. Al 16:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Pschemp
Please do not restore comments on other users' talk pages after they have removed them, as you did here. Any user is free to to archive or refactor their own talk page as they see fit, short of altering signed comments. Pschemp's removal of the message was perfectly fine, and your restoration of it is very rude.--SB | T 19:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Administrator Tony
Hi, just like you I was very suprised in the way the Administrator Tony Sidaway reacted with regard to the removal of political userboxes. I am not very familiar with the procedures surrounding adminship, but looking at his block log does not give me the impression he has behaved admin-like since he became Administrator in March 2005. What is your opinion on this matter? Do you think we should try to get someone else (another admin) to have a look at this? Or let it go? Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned this same comment to two of the other Administrators that replied on the subject. We'll see what happens. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:Fredgreg
As yet inconclusive, but I'll keep an eye out, thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c)  19:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

My edits are not "tests," so stop reverting them and condescendingly sending me to the "sandbox."
There's a lot of redundant crapola on the EC page, as well as the standard Republican ploy of calling science "controversial." Stop changing my changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.86.65 (talk • contribs)

Heh...
Well, Tony's not a bad guy. And Alienus should still watch the edit warring. Sasquatch t|c 00:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Alienus and things that don't make sense
On User_talk:Alienus, you asked: "Is there a part of ''"Tony has to just walk away and let cooler heads prevail. Until he's calmed down, he must recuse himself from any case involving me"'' that just doesn't make sense somehow?" I'm replying to you here, since Al is using popups to revert my answer to you on his talk page.

The answer is yes, there is a part of that that doesn't make sense. The part that doesn't make sense is the argument that an admin must recuse himself from taking an administrative action against an editor simply because he has blocked that editor. Alienus makes this claim with regularity, usually in concert with claiming that the admin who blocked him is either incompetent or malicious. It didn't make any sense the first time he made it, and it doesn't make any sense now. (It is considered good form for admins to not take administrative actions against editors with whom they are engaged in content disputes, which is one reason I've stopped blocking Alienus for anything related to articles that I edit.) I think the fact that the unblocking admin described Al's characterization of Tony's actions as "pseudo 'hey look, Tony has a personal vendetta against me' bullshit" might also be a clue as to why Al doesn't get to write the rules here.

Admins pay more attention to editors who misbehave. Editors who misbehave get more scrutiny, not less. This means that an edit made by a longtime contributor who tends to avoid edit wars and incivility may be treated differently than an edit by someone with a history of edit warring and incivility. That's why Tony is paying closer attention to Al. That's not persecution: that's fairness in action.

If Alienus thinks that Tony has taken inappropriate action, then he should use the dispute resolution process to solve the problem. Until and unless he does that, the argument that Tony has to ignore Al's behavior should be taken as seriously as the claim that the other 7 or so admins who blocked him were all corrupt and/or incompetent. Nandesuka 17:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughtful reply. The main points I would make in response are twofold.  First, I think it's mischaracterizing the second unblock as somehow indicating that the block was inappropriate.  The unblocking admin basically said in no uncertain terms that he agreed with Tony that Al was edit warring.  He merely gave Al a chance to promise not to edit war, and is acting based on that promise.  That's generous of him, but doesn't reflect badly on Tony, in my opinion.  Second, the reason Al's interactions with other admins are at issue is that they go to the issue of whether Al's characterizations of Tony are trustworthy.  There are thousands of editors at Wikipedia who make thousands upon thousands of edits without incurring a single ban from a one admin, let alone 11 blocks from 8 different admins in 6 months.  Al's response to this has been to lash out at the admins who have blocked him.  That's not a tangential issue, but is rather central.  Whether Tony overreacted to Al isn't determinable in a vacuum &mdash; its related directly to the question of Al's behavior and his reactions to input from other editors.  It's not unusual that an admin rides someone who he perceives as causing trouble harder.  That's one important part of an admin's job.  Nandesuka 18:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In terms of forming consensus, the opinions of all editors, admin or not, should be given equal weight. So in this particular point we are as one. Nandesuka 19:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

anon vandalism
Looks like both our userpages got hit. It's a shame that things like this happen, but I'm glad to know I'm not alone in these 'attacks'. Heh! --Andrew c 21:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Page on Magick
Friend, What is described in the page are the rites of the teneberous ones- black magic in its most grotesque form. Sex, the ninth sphere is ineffably divine and if abused results in terrible karmic consequences. I urge you to go through the teachings on http://www.gnosis-usa.com And the book "Perfect Matrimony"

http://www.gnosiscentral.com/englishbooks/Perfect_Matrimony.pdf

also the books available here:

http://www.americangnosticassociation.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=67&Itemid=4

That is why I blanked most of the content. If we take such black things to the people, we ourselves will have to bear the karmic burden. How many souls will we have lead down the wrong path?

White adept 03:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont udnerstand why you consider a long description of some grotesque ritual to be just perfect for the page. Anyway its your wish. I will just leave it that way and add another pragraph on the teachings of the Gnostic White Lodge. White adept 04:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits by 202.83.33.107 on Sex magic
I see that you have been editing the sex magic article. It has recently been tagged POV by 202.83.33.107, with the edit summary "see talk page". There is however no specific explanation on the talk page. I suspect that this editor is no other than White Adept (see his contribs). If so, the article shouldn't be tagged (not without a good explanation). Tell me what you think. Iron C hris |  (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Page on Sex Magic
Friend,

I dont intent to advertise or anything. I'll try to work on the artile when I get more time. Thanks for pointing out. But the rest of the article seems to be an advertisement for a few authors. And it projects some "practice" as "sex magic".

Secondly, by not spilling seminal liquid.. it is meant that one avoids the Orgasm .. Kindly go through these two books:

1. Revolutionary Psychology ( http://www.gnosiscentral.com/englishbooks/Treatise_of_Revolutionary_Psychology.pdf ) 2. The Perfect Matrimony ( http://www.gnosiscentral.com/englishbooks/Perfect_Matrimony.pdf )

I have no intention to "advertise". I just wanted to let you know a few things so that you may decide for yourself. I sincerely apologize if I violated wikipedia rules.

White adept 05:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Gaia theory
Thank you for delete on Nuclear power with reason that not citation of where the comment comes from. It was the book recently written by Lovelock, Revenge of Gaia. It was in the sentence above my contribution. If you do not like nuclear power option in Lovelock work and also want to comment on his Gaia theory then say so but deletetion of others work stops the debate and building up of the debate to a meaningful climax. Can you please reinsert my contribution. It is up to you, Gaia waits your response RoddyYoung 10:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)219.89.161.216 13:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears as though you thought I had ignored your note; I actually already responded on your talk page (at this point, I have written on both the talk page of you account, and that of your IP). As noted above, this is generally what I do. rom a rin [talk ] 14:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You see a delete takes out all of what the person was trying to contribute. So if you had read his book you could have introduced by section with " Acording to lovelock bla bla bal" and I would have appreciated that. the five pillers also apply to deletions in a way. I do not go back to places that have deleted my work, I think that it is better to contact the deleter and educate them in bringing out the five pillars in other people's work. Deleting is very final. Especially when a person can not be bothered to return and look at the work deleted to see what could be improved. RoddyYoung 09:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC) ps have a go with this and fix us some sp I would like that.

Tom Harrison talking about incivility???
I noticed a recent discussion from this person about how incivility is corrosive, which I find incredibly amusing considering his recent rudeness in reverting on the Criteria for speedy deletion page:

Despite the fact that discussion had already started, Mr harrison felt that he had no need to enter into this discussion and instead chose to force his views on everyone else: Here.

Note specifically his comment:


 * No, there was no accident. I saw your edit, thought it was not an improvement, and changed it back. I don't think it warrants an extended dabate on the talk page.

When asked to enter into discussion and to reach a conscensus he has chosen to be completely silent on the issue. How can someone state that there is a problem and yet take such blatantly rude actions which fuel the very thing he says that he is against? To ignore discussion, ignore conscensus, and actually state that he didn't feel talk was required is beyond me. As you have said, administrators should Lead by example... I attempted to tell Mr Harrison this very thing yet it appears to have fallen on deaf ears. I cannot abide by hypocritical people and sadly i feel his actions have shown him to be such.

I feel that wikipedia has a serious hole in this area. Unless an edit is clearly rubbish, at what point should a discussion be started? Should the person who feels the edit was not contributing take it to talk to discuss the issue before its removal? If it is removed then it places the onus on the editor to now discuss to have it re-included again. When someone like Mr Harrison completely ignores all discussions then it means the revert will always stand true as no discussion is ever entered into and the editor re-adding the content would be considered as starting an edit war. Thus wikipedia is fundamentally flawed when those who wish to subvert the rules simply continue to edit while blatantly ignoring discussions knowing full well that by not even attempting to reach conscensus their edit will ultimately stand. I believe Mr Harrison knows this, knows that his is a position where he can act in such a way and get away with it and thus simple users like myself are unable to find any kind of decent dealings. Enigmatical 01:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am referring to a discussion you had with him in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Section break (1). The way in which he talks suggests that he is not part of the incivility and that "we" (ie administators) cannot allow it to go on. I see this as amazingly hypocritical and looking at some of the other edits he has done it seems this attitude of ignoring conscensus and using his own views as being beyond any kind of discussion is common. Enigmatical 03:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Reproductive rights != pro-choice
Reproductive rights is not synynomous with "pro-choice." My version made that clear, and was in line with certain previous versions. Your newest version completely erases the distinction. Often I have seen reproductive rights used as a sort of euphemism or code word for the pro-choice position, (just as culture of life is for the pro-life position)but still they are not the same thing. Killua 20:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)