User talk:SCZenz/Archive4

re: orphaned categories
Yes, I'll take care of those. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. peace, Tedernst | talk 04:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

My appologies. Assawyer 05:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

RFC comments
Hmmm... after re-reading that convoluted wording, it seems that you are right. Seems somewhat counter-intuitive to have a Comments section that's not intended for comments. I'll go revert all the changes I've done since, if you haven't already done so. Cheers. Zocky 06:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.  freestylefrappe 16:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow! My first vandalism template! :-) -- SCZenz 21:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Category main
Any article that use the {main} template with more than 5 variables will get flaged by showing up in that category. The main template maxes out at 5 five variables to reduce the number of variables and code needed for performance reasons since %99 of the time its only one variable used. --Stbalbach 16:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah maintainence sounds right. --Stbalbach 16:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe
Man, he can't leave well enough alone, can he? FSF is his own worst enemy it seems. Ok, i'll be a minor party on that. karmafist 17:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * When trying to revert Locke Cole I accidentally deleted your confirmation that parties were aware..and then at the same time you tried to revert his edits...so I guess you could either copy and paste back your confirmation or revert to Raul654 and then re-add my parties...freestylefrappe 18:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'll post the diffs asap. freestylefrappe 18:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

vandalism warnings
please do not remove notices on the administrator vandalism noticeboard when they have only been there for 2 minutes Yuckfoo 22:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * WP:AIAV is not a page to appraise administrators of ongoing vandalism; it's a page for users who require immediate action. That user, who had been warned after his last edit, did not require immediate action, so I removed him.  However, when he vandalized again, reposting was appropriate&mdash;I blocked him just now. -- SCZenz 22:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * well then we disagree please allow a notice to last more than 2 minutes next time Yuckfoo 22:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If you read the instructions on WP:AIAV, you'll see that administrators are changed with making a judgement about the appropriate action, and then removing the name from the list either way. That's what I did.  If you disagree with my judgement in a specific case, you're free to take it up with me on my talk page. -- SCZenz 22:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * we disagreed thats why you received my message because it required immediate action Yuckfoo 22:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * But at the time you made the posting, you hadn't given him a chance to respond to the warning. If you give him test4, I'm not gonna block him unless he disregards it. Later, you reposted, which was proper.  -- SCZenz 22:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * why even warn someone when they use edit summary "pi vandalism strikes back!" that does not even make sense really next time please leave my note for more than 2 minutes thank you Yuckfoo 22:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

pwned
&mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  22:24, Dec. 23, 2005
 * 16:22, December 23, 2005 SCZenz blocked "User:24.23.189.98" with an expiry time of 24 hours (repeated, warned vandalism)
 * 16:22, December 23, 2005 Freakofnurture blocked "User:24.23.189.98" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandal)

Response on RFAr
I don't disagree that you were "unfailingly polite", but I believe in being deliberately impolite when it is neccessary to get someone's attention or gain their respect, as I think you understand based on your confrontational statements here. The proper application of impolite comments can be very beneficial in any debate... I opened my defense of Pigsonthewing by calling him "a pain in the ass" and I think he appreciated the directness. An impolite, but honest, opinion will usually establish more understanding and respect than clinical politeness.

Indeed, I would only be 'unfailingly polite' through a long debate in the rare cases when I wish to be above reproach so that I may destroy someone utterly.

Things you "might have done better", based upon a goal of helping FSF to improve, would be to:
 * 1) Give credence to his explanations. Very few people assume criticism to be well-meaning without some reason to believe the person has their best interests to heart. Acknowledge that the 3RR on copyvio situation involved good faith attempts to adhere to policy and might not have warranted a block... establishing yourself as a friendly voice rather than someone 'being mean' increases the likelihood that suggestions of more detailed and polite communication might actually be heeded.
 * 2) Assume all possible good faith and make allowances for the person inevitably feeling 'put upon'. There was no reason to continue dragging up the 'removed material from his RfC' bit... FSF offered a reasonable explanation, feeling it unfair to add new complaints about him where people had already voted. Is that provably why he did it? No, but it's a reasonable complaint and anyone in his position would feel beleaguered. Stick to the core problems rather than hammering on every mis-step.
 * 3) Keep others in check to prevent 'piling on' and a 'witch hunt' atmosphere. There are few means more effective for tearing someone down than having some individuals politely critiquing them while others rip into the person in a markedly less polite manner. If your goal is to help someone improve you need to protect them from unwarranted and over-zealous criticisms. Allowing such to go unchecked only guarantees that they will see 'constructive' criticism as anything but and reject it out of hand.

At a certain level 'politeness' is just the window dressing. Most people never see that. I think you do. And that's me... being impolite. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 03:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Gloating was definately not my intent. I just wanted to let him know what would happen in an attempt to dissuade him, I don't think he's seeing things clearly at this point. karmafist 05:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Better for the rfar perhaps, but I'm still going to try to be nice to the guy regardless of how he acts. karmafist 06:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, there's the issue. Not whether i'm nice, but rather the perception of whether i'm nice. Well, in any case, I thank you for your concern there, and I think things will turn out alright, at least compared to what i'm used to in similiar situations. karmafist 06:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Volatile Page Tag

 * True again. It'll be interesting how that page works out, there are a bunch of angry people on all sides of the issue. DolphinCompSci 08:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a thought. Glancing at the edit log for that page has a WHOLE LOT of edits being done rather frequently, so it certainly fits one definition of volatile. Thanks. DolphinCompSci 07:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The Bill O'Reilly page is an extremely volatile page (as you may have noticed)...and there's quite a lot of FUD going on around it on how to handle it.

I think one partial solution could be extremely simple. While the ultimate solution hasn't popped into my head yet (and probably won't, it's midnight here...) I would advocate a sort of tag that goes like this:

"This page is extremely volatile and may not always conform to the Neutral Point of View policy of Wikipedia. See the talk page for details."

...or perhaps something to that effect. That way, the attention of the reader is flagged that "Hey, this is a page that's considered very, uh, popular, among certain people who like scribbling!". An inherent messiness comes with a tremendous collaborative effort such as Wikipedia, and sometimes that messiness is a result of random vandalism, deliberate vandalism, angry people (both left and right) and...well, you get the idea.

By the way, thanks for your warm welcome. DolphinCompSci 07:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, I kinda noticed that...I'll stop running against the grain now :D But it is kinda fun sometimes to have a stack that grows up rather than down, even though the rest of the world does it the other way. (That made no sense. I think I'll sleep...now. Night.) I'll use standard practice from now on. DolphinCompSci 08:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted
Requests for arbitration/Freestylefrappe has been accepted. Please place evidence at Requests for arbitration/Freestylefrappe/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Requests for arbitration/Freestylefrappe/Workshop. Fred Bauder 17:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

FSF
Sure, no prob. Just to check, is Free or Freestyle or something like that ok? I'll do the whole thing just in case for now.karmafist 23:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe
Thank you for the information. In regard to the claims of alleged abuse of administrator powers and behavior inappropriate to an administrator made against Freestylefrappe, I have been threatened with blocking twice by this user: once for removing erroneous claims from an RFC that has nothing to do with me, and two, for politely responding to comments on his talk page. Your thoughts? --Viriditas 00:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I also feel that the user breached WP:CIV through "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" or outright "lies".  I am going to assume good faith and give Freestylefrappe a little time to realize his error and fix it. If you have any other suggestions or comments, please let me know. --Viriditas 00:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll read through it and get back to you. I'm supposed to be on wikibreak! :-) --Viriditas 01:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it, I do have a brief question for you. Do you know if a user certifying the basis for an RFC dispute has the right to modify, alter, or otherwise change the Statement of the dispute?  According to the instructions, the answer is yes. ("This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section).  I would like to sign an RFC as a user certifying the basis for a dispute, and remove an erroneous accusation made by Freestylefrappe without the threat of being blocked.  As far as I can tell, this appears to be a legitimate action on my part.  Of course, I would like to get confirmation before I do this, so I don't get blocked.  Any relevant allegations which can be sourced with diffs, will of course remain in the RFC. --Viriditas 01:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the good advice. You also wrote, "You shouldn't remove accusations made of you, even if erroneous and/or irrelevant, from an RfC."  I would generally agree with that statement, except in this case, the statement by Freestylefrappe, namely:In no way do I support what Viridatas has been doing. The harassment is both ways erroneously suggests (sans evidence) that I have harassed user Haizum, and this statement goes against basic RFC guidlines.  For example, the RFC is supposed to represent a brief neutral statement of the issue. Freestylefrappe's opinion is not neutral and has no place in the description of his conflict.  I can find no justification for his statement on any policy or guideline page.  Freestylefrappe has also thrown WP:EQ to the wind, ignoring my requests to post diffs that substantiate his opinion.  I see no reason why I shouldn't certify the basis for the dispute, removing unsubstantiated opinions to talk per RFC guidelines. --Viriditas 03:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right, of course. What's the best place to ask questions about RFC procedures and get a timely response?  --Viriditas 03:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV and Kwanzaa
First off: to be sure, some of the various anons' edits have been blatant vandalism. However, I think you miss the point of NPOV. It does NOT mean that an article cannot present a hostile viewpoint of the subject in question. It simply means that the article must present ALL viewpoints on the subject, and leave any value judgments to the reader. Thus, linking to a site hostile to the subject is not a violation of NPOV and is perfectly acceptable. Kurt Weber 01:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

re: deletion of Oven Rack Guard
dear sir, so you saw fit to delete the oven rack guard article because you deem it an advertisement. Then why is this article not deleted, for the same reason.I think there be strong bias on Wikipedia...so how do you get to be in the in crowd? burt 845 298 4229 I dare ya

Roomba From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Jump to: navigation, search Roomba is a robotic vacuum cleaner made and sold by iRobot. It is marketed as a Robotic Floorvac. The Roomba was first released in 2002 with updates and new models released in 2003, 2004, and 2005. In 2005 the Roomba Scheduler was released and iRobot began updating third generation Roomba's to the improved 2.1 version. As of May 2005, over 1.2 million units have been sold, making it the most successful domestic robot so far. &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by BSHUL (talk &bull; contribs) 17:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Evidence explanation
The 'here' link includes this explanation of why self-identfying as an admin was not "intimidation";

"My question on the Kumanovo talk page regarding whether another user was aware that I was an admin was not an attempt to intimidate him. If I wanted to block him I would have done so. I was trying to find out why my word was second to a bunch of vandalizing anons."

The '87' update included this 'removal of material from RfC' accusation;

"Removes a claim of WP:OWN vios on his rfc, claiming it to be "nonsense" in his edit summary.[76]"
 * No problem. Unfortunately, both contained a bunch of things so it's difficult to pin down the specific text I was referring to. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 02:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Arrested Development characters
I replied to your message on my talk page. --Christopherlin 07:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Hungarian communists
Sorry. What I had deleted was a category named "Hungarian Communists", while "Hungarian communists" still exists and is not orphan. The category did not have more than one member, whom I 'needed' for the "communists" category. I'll be more careful in thr future, thank you for letting me know.Dahn 07:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Remember?
Remember you answered the "Quark" talk page question not so long ago? Well,I THink you better take a look again! :-)

Thanks
Thanks for cleaning up on my page. :) --jh51681 07:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Archjr
Thanks for your attention in the matter --Valermos 07:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

economic fascism
Thanks for the advice, but I'm not the only one that has reverted the article when someone has tried to redirect it without a consensus. I'm just the only one tonight. Also, there was just a vote a couple weeks ago that revealed a lack of consensus:. Here are others complaining about redirecting without a consensus: RJII 07:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

hi again
well i've been around the circle and haven't gotten anywhere.... what i did learn is...ask 100 admins why your article was deleted and you'll get 101 different answers. i have made all the changes everyone has suggested and i still can't get it published, why not? can you explicitly tell me how to get some review of this? burt

Vandals
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll repost it there too. S W D 3 1 6 talk to me 05:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

re: deletion cool touch ovenrack guard
hi again,

i asked several admins why this article was deleted and received several different reasons for deletion, i have addressed all of them to no avail. the last admin said that it was because "I" posted it. There are many people who have no vested interest in the Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard, that can submit the article. in fact, one already did and it was speedy deleted. so what is the specific problem preventing the article from being part of wikipedia?...so i can address it

the "Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard" article is as follows:

Ovens and stoves, throughout history, have one thing in common, they will burn the person who comes in contact with their hot metal surfaces, for instance, the oven rack's front edge.Devices to protect the hands, such as oven gloves, have been developed, but need to be used consistently, to be effective; so people still get burned. In 2004, a device has been developed by Burt Shulman of Wappingers Falls, NY, called the Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard, which is a fabric strip that attaches along the front edge of the oven rack and stays in the oven. If a person touches it, even at 500 deg. F., they will not be burned. - The fabric is made from a modern synthetic fiber called Nomex - which can withstand 500 deg. F. temperatures and has both low thermal conductivity and thermal mass These material properties reduce the heat transferred to the skin, during the "touch', so no burn results. Source Articles:

re: wikipedia deletion review
i looked for the button that says "click here to initiate a wikipedia review", but i dont see it. i asked for specific/explicit help. all im getting from the administration is generalizations that are unuseable to a wikioutsider like me. is this a tactic? please tell me exactly how to ask for a deletion review. also, what would happen if someone just corrects the numerous deletion "reasons" which were cited and resubmits? burt

My RfA
Hi SCZenz, now that I'm an administrator, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You should have communicated sooner...
In the futre, I would prefer that you ask me to silence myself in front of others and that you do so in a timely fashion. -- Emact 04:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know what this comment means, but the message I wrote on your page at the same time pretty much says it all. -- SCZenz 05:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner's actions
Since Snowspinner shows no willingness to refrain from ongoing violations of WP:BP, I have opened a RFC. See Requests for comment/Snowspinner 3. I would greatly appreciate it if you would assist here since you were involved in undoing his out-of-process blocks. Also, if you could make sure that the blocked users are unblocked so that they can comment, it would be most helpful. Firebug 17:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If he re-blocks anymore, i'll block him. karmafist 17:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. Hopefully he'll get the message and stop so we can work this out through the proper channels, it appears that he was just being an attack dog for those hoping to squelch the Kelly Martin rfc, but I just got in on this so I can't say that with certainty. All I know is that he basically blocked them because he didn't like them because there wasn't any real justification in the contribs from his explanation. karmafist 17:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * During the last month or two, I think there's barely any process left, thus leaving us with people like Snowspinner and Kelly Martin. Ultimately blocking him would only be to try and prevent wheel wars, but it probably wouldn't stop anything. I've just lost hope in the "authorities" of Wikipedia to provide any other option, really. karmafist 18:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The blocks
Simply put, because the creation of that template causes more long term and substantial damage to Wikipedia than Willy on Wheels ever did. Phil Sandifer 17:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * We also block for things like 3RR violations. Simply put, we do block as a deterrent, and this needs to be deterred. Phil Sandifer 17:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Explain to me, Snowspinner, how linking to an RfC "causes more long term and substantial damage to Wikipedia than Willy on Wheels ever did"?


 * Looks like you're obviously worried that the RfC will be successful and so are making ad hominen attacks on people involved. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  17:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Creating a template specifically to get people to oppose good faith actions of another admin is the problem. Phil Sandifer 17:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I find it difficult to believe that one can be that confused about fundamental issues of what Wikipedia is. Phil Sandifer 17:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently you do if you believe blocking people for having a different POV is acceptable, Phil. karmafist 17:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocks

 * User:N000 - indefinite - "trollery" aka one of the several users replacing the template linking to RfC after Cryptic deleted it
 * User:Saveus (this person may be unblocked now)
 * (related: Requests for comment/Snowspinner 3)
 * User:Miborovsky (think is unblocked now though)
 * User:Morgan695 (no idea)
 * User:Morgan695 (no idea)

Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard, Please pass to deletion review
hi there, I appreciate your offer to help with posting to the deletion review.

my appeal is as follows:

Opening statement: I posted the article on the Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard on Wikipedia, in good faith, thinking that it was an educational article, similar to the "How Stuff Works" articles, that are quite informative and useful. I received comments in no particular order, as follows:(I added the 1). , 2)., to make references easier)

The Comments:

1).  Delete : apparent advertisement for product, already edited-out elsewhere, added by probable spammer Special:Contributions/69.118.41.221. --Zigger User:Zigger  User_talk:Zigger 16:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 2).   Delete - I agree, a product ad. Bergsten User:Bergsten 16:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 3). Delete, advert. Stifle User:Stifle 00:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 4).  It's got to do with a product making national news or not, I think. You might review What Wikipedia is not WP:NOT and WP:SPAM WP:SPAM, and if you still disagree with me you can appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion Review Deletion_Review . -- SCZenz User:SCZenz 22:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

5).Roomba Roomba is an article that was written by Wikipedians, not by the company that makes the product. 6).You have a patent on the technology used in the Oven rack guard and clearly have a vested interest in creating the article. That's the difference, and the reason why your article is an advertisement and Roomba Roomba is not. If you'd like to create a Request for Undeletion, you can, but it will not succeed. Andre User:Andrevan (talk User_talk:Andrevan) 20:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 7). Your article reads like sales pitch, 8). your references are essentially product reviews. 9).The oven rack guard, as proud as you are of it, is non-notable. Are there other oven rack guards on the market? I couldn't find any, you are stuck having to reference your product because no others exist. 10). Using a sock puppet Internet_sock_puppet, NoMoreBurns...index.php?title=User:NoMoreBurns&action=edit, to attempt to get your article published, as well as    11). your lack of contributions to other articles, isn't helping your case. maxcap User:Maxcap 20:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

12). Phroziac wrote: User:Phroziac I've heard of cool touch before. It's not as known about as Roomba. 13). Deletion discussions are usually very silly. 14). You need independant, verifiable sources to write an article. See our policies on "No independant research" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR). 15). It's also usually considered a bad idea to write about yourself, your company, or something you invented. 16). And, it's way more likely to be neutral if someone else writes it. Anyway, you should probably just let someone else write the article. If someone takes the time to write about it on Wikipedia, then we *know* it's well known

Reviewing the numbered comments above:

1). Comments 1,2,3,5,6,7,15 indicate that the CTORG article is, an advertisement, a sales pitch, a vanity article. To these, I respond with the Roomba article; here are some quotes from the article: "Roomba is a robotic vacuum cleaner made and sold by iRobot." "Twenty percent of the sale price of this Roomba will be donated to the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, with a $45,000 minimum guarantee." "As of May 2005, over 1.2 million units have been sold, making it the most successful domestic robot so far." "Unlike the competing (and much more expensive) Electrolux Trilobite vacuuming robots, Roomba's do not map out the rooms they are cleaning."

Not to mention a detailed description of all the models and accessories available, My contention is that if this self touting article has not been deleted as a long winded advertisement, then the CTORG article is not an advertisement/sales pitch/vanity article.

2). Comments #5, 6, 10, 15 and 16. indicate that the reason the CTORG article is considered an advertisement is because it is written by me and I have vested interest. In response to this, the article was edited and reposted by another person, who has no vested interest, yet the CTORG article remains deleted. The resubmit was further discounted, by deeming it "written by a sock puppet".   See the following link:           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith (I can supply an affidavit).

3). Comment #11, my lack of other contributions, in my opinion, is not a criteria for article deletion.

4). Comment #4, The Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard made national news when Reader's Digest and HGTV, presented international written and video coverage. Additionally, two newspaper articles are cited in the CTORG source links. Other newspaper articles can be supplied, if required.

5). Comment #8 indicates that the references cited by the CTORG article, are product reviews. Indeed, the references cited refer to this technical development, as embodied by the CTORG product. Please see Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_phone and check out all the product reviews in the External Links. If those references are acceptable, then the CTORG references are acceptable.

6). Comment #9 indicates that the CTORG article, is non-notable, "because no others exist" The latter, is absolutely true, there is no other product like the CTORG. Please see Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dippin_dots in which no others exist. If this article can be in Wikipedia, then the CTORG article can be. Additionally "Notability is related to importance . Articles should be relevant to a reasonable number of people". The CTORG article is relevant to anyone who uses an oven, as well as, the many who have burned themselves. Are there any female admins?

7). Comment #13...no comment.

In Summation:

I believe that the Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard article in one of its more recent edits, meets the criteria for a Wikipedia article and does not meet the criteria for deletion:

1). It is written based on independent, verifiable and notable sources. (See the CTORG article below) and so it is not written, as original research (such as reporting data coming from one's lab).

2). It is notable, as it is relevant to anyone who uses an oven. It was written about in Internationally circulated articles from Reader's Digest(May 2004), HGTV, and Gizmag (Austrailia). It has won the Cooking Club of America's Seal of Approval.

2). It is not a vanity page, because it was lastly edited and submitted by someone, other than myself, who has no vested interest in the article.

3). It is not a product advertisement or sales pitch. The embodiment of the particular use of two of Nomex's physical properties is indeed a product (Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard). One cannot discuss this particular use of Nomex's properties, without discussing it's embodiment. (see comment #9..."you are stuck..."). Additionally, The CTORG article's wording, does not try to persuade someone they need it, does not offer it for sale, quote a price or tell where it can be bought.

4). It has a more neutral point of view, than the Roomba article, which has not been cited for POV.

Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard article:

(note: each line is an independently verifiable fact, no opinions) (note: some source articles were stored in my FTP space) Ovens and stoves, throughout history, have something in common; they will burn the person who comes in contact with their hot metal surfaces, for instance, the oven rack's front edge. Devices to protect the hands, such as oven gloves, have been developed, but need to be used consistently, to be effective; so people still get burned. In 2004, a device was developed by Burt Shulman of Wappingers Falls, NY, called the Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard, which is a fabric strip that attaches along the front edge of the oven rack and stays in the oven.  If a person touches it, even at 500 deg. F., they will not be burned. The fabric is made from a modern synthetic fiber called Nomex Nomex - which can withstand 500 deg. F. temperatures and has both low thermal conductivity Thermal_conductivity and thermal mass Thermal_mass,. These material properties reduce the heat transferred to the skin, during the "touch', so no burn results. Source Articles:

I've been blocked
I blocked Karmafist and Snowspinner for 3RR violations, see WP:AN/I. Snowspinner claimed it was unjust and unblocked Karmafist, whom I reblocked&mdash;so Snowspinner has blocked me for wheel warring. I've been doing a lot less of that than many people, and it was inappropriate for Snowspinner to reverse any part of my block when he was involved, so I think it was unjust to block me. But obviously that's up to whether a neutral admin sees this an agrees with me. -- SCZenz 05:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sean. -- SCZenz 05:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The Red Cross is going to have to be called in to tend to the wounded in this madness at some point. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, here's a kiss and a slap in one. I'm doing this here because WP:ANI has seen enough action for one day. (+) Good on you for at least trying to restore some order. (-) Any doubt that User:Aaron Brenneman would get the full 24 hours for such a blatent 3RR? brenneman (t) (c) 05:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, that's 94% kiss and 6% slap. I suppose it's pretty unfair of me to give you a hard time when no one else was doing anything.  As a member of the underclass, I sometimes let my frustration that the rules are cobwebs for the admins and chains of steel for everyone else get the better of me.  I'm sorry. -  brenneman (t) (c)  06:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration request Re: Cold Fusion
Greetings. You wrote:


 * "You probably want to bring your request to Wikipedia:Requests for comment, which is a relatively informal way of getting outside comments on an article."

I had a look at that section. To be honest, I am not familiar with Wikipedia and I cannot make head or tail of it. Would you very kindly copy the message I posted to whom it may concern? Or post it wherever it is supposed to be posted. I hope this is not a lot of trouble for you, and it would be faster than for you to explain to me what goes where.

I am baffled by your statement, “The Arbitration Committee usually deals with user misconduct, not content disputes.” This is only about misconduct as far as I am concerned. I have no quarrel with the opponent’s content; I only want to stop them from deleting everything that I and my colleagues wrote in response. Perhaps at Wikipedia it is not considered misconduct to erase everything. In that case I will withdraw from the forum and let the opponents write whatever they want. I think it is impossible to discuss a scientific subject if this sort of behavior is allowed. I am sure the cold fusion researchers -- who are a bunch of fuddy-duddy 70-year-old university professors -- will not stand for it. As I am sure you know, by the standards of academia, deleting content wholesale is beyond the pale. It is unthinkable. Perhaps Wikipeia standards are different, and I have no business trying to participate. My point is that if you want these people to contribute to this article, you will have to take some steps to accommodate them, and meet their cultural standards.

Since you are a physicist you will have zero trouble understanding the technical issues being disputed. This is babyfood by your standards. It is all early 19th century physics. (That is literally true: British researchers generally favor a calorimeter designed by J. P. Joule, while the researchers at a French oil company swear by an ice calorimeter designed by Lavoisier in 1787.) So let me take the liberty of appending the example I mentioned in the first message.

--JedRothwell 23:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

- - - - - - - - - - - -

AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT WAS DELETED. This discussion about energy storage versus production is vital. It is one of the most important aspects of cold fusion.

PRESENT VERSION:

Energy source vs power store

While the output power is higher than the input power during the power burst, the power balance over the whole experiment does not show significant imbalances. Since the mechanism under the power burst is not known, one cannot say whether energy is really produced, or simply stored during the early stages of the experiment (loading of deuterium in the Palladium cathode) for later release during the power burst.

A "power store" discovery would have much less value than an "energy source" one, especially if the stored power can only be released in the form of heat.

DELETE VERSION WHICH INCLUDING COMMENTS BY RESEARCHERS, AND REFERENCES TO LITERATURE: Energy source vs. power store Some skeptics hypothesize that while the output power is higher than the input power during the power burst, the power balance over the whole experiment does not show significant imbalances. (In other words, each positive exothermic power burst is balanced by a previous period of negative power, or endothermic storage.) Since the mechanism under the power burst is not known, one cannot say whether energy is really produced, or simply stored during the early stages of the experiment (during the loading of deuterium in the palladium cathode) for later release during the power burst. A "power store" discovery would yield only a new, and very expensive, kind of storage battery, not a source of abundant cheap fusion power. However, this cannot be the case, because large endothermic storage is not observed. When the experiment begins, there are a few hours of endothermic storage as the palladium is loaded, and this is readily detected. (A calorimeter measures a heat deficit as accurately as it measures excess heat.) In most bulk palladium electrochemical experiments, this is followed by an incubation period of 10 to 20 days, during which there is neither excess heat nor storage. Following that, there is continuous excess heat production, which often continues longer than the incubation period, and produces far more energy than the initial endothermic storage. "Isothermal Flow Calorimetric Investigations of the D/Pd System" shows typical examples. [REF McKubre0] Since the excess heat is easily detected, at a high signal to noise ratio, if there were an initial endothermic storage phase to balance it, this would be even easier to detect, because it would have to be larger. Furthermore, this energy storage hypothesis would violate the laws of physics, because most cells produce far more energy than any known chemical storage mechanism would permit. Chemical processes store (or produce) at most 12 eV per atom of reactant, whereas many cold fusion experiments have produced hundreds of eV per atom of cathode material, and some have produced ~100,000 eV per atom. Finally, many researchers, notably Kainthla et al. [REF Kainthla] and McKubre et al. [REF McKubre1] have conducted careful inventories of chemical fuel and potential storage mechanisms in cold fusion cells, and they have found neither fuel nor spent ash that could account for more than a tiny fraction of the excess heat. Since many cells have released large amounts of energy, a megajoule or more, this chemical fuel would have to be present in macroscopic amounts. In fact, in many cases the volume of ash would greatly exceed the entire cell volume. These issues of energy storage and chemical fuel hypotheses have been discussed in the literature exhaustively. See, for example, "A Response to the Review of Cold Fusion by the DoE", section II.1.2. [REF Storms]

A SKEPTIC MIGHT WANT TO QUIBBLE WITH THIS, OR ASK FOR MORE REFERENCES (WHICH I WOULD BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE), BUT I DO NOT THINK IT IS RIGHT TO SIMPLY DELETE IT.

Template:User against jews
It was admittedly made as a point. However I will continue to do so until other editors see reason. Being selective about which religions they want to allow to be bashed is against policy as well and an abuse of admin power. It's either all or nothing... which is something they need to think about if they're going to allow that BS Scientology hater box.Gateman1997 08:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Reverts
One question on reverts, I did not revert the Emo (music) page since it was passed its number of daily reverts (3). In the event that there is evident vandalism are we, simple users, allowed to revert or should we do like I did, contact an administrator? Thanks, Kefs 18:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Mistress Selina Kyle
Why did you include add text from the "Users unjustly blocked" section, Mistress Selina Kyle already included a link to it?

Prodego talk  22:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Never mind, it was signed by you, but put there by Mistress Selina Kyle. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  22:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't call me names
Let's disagree in a civil manner. Jim Apple 07:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Bruce Lee article section split
Hi, since you proposed a Bruce Lee-related category renaming, what do you think about the splitsection suggestion in the main article? I put up the tag because the section is more about Category:Lists of fictional characters as opposed to the real subject of the article. Thanks. Shawnc 12:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: 69.22.98.162
I am really not versed in Wikipedia rules, but I was under the impression that excessive repeated reverts were by themselves cause for action. Furthermore, it seemed to me that the forceful repeated insertion of a tag, without discussion or consensus, in contravention of the opinions of a number of signed in editors, was also against the rules. An article or section is not disputed because someone comes along and disputes it, but because there is ongoing and properly documented scholarly dispute. If you look at the history of this anon you will see that he has been banned before, perhaps the people who did the banning can be more articulate, in a legalistic sense, than someone like myself who has no good grasp of the finer points of the regulations. Regards, Haiduc 16:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Re your ...which means that it is disputed. I beg to differ. The academic discussion about the hows and whys of da Vinci's personal life have little to do with this user's contribution: Wikipedia is absolutely infested with faggots, that's the problem. and his sabotage. You are entitled to act as you see fit, but not to conflate legitimate discourse with vandalism. Haiduc 16:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling you may be right about the letter but not the spirit of the rules, else why would he have been blocked for exctly the kind of activity you claim is not considered "vandalism"? The basic point, all terminology aside, is that we are here to increase the sum total of information, as a service to others, presumably. This kind of systematic disruptive activity, which adds nothing but only places a time burden on more productive editors, is a kind of political sabotage and not conducive to improving or adding to the substance or accuracy of an article. You have an objection? Then enter the discussion in a way that challenges and enriches it. So far his contributions have amounted to obsessive defacement. But why are we debating matters that are obvious? Haiduc 17:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi from Talk:Dark energy
Hi! I see that you (presumably) know a lot more about physics and cosmology than I do. Therefore, the conversation we're having on Talk:Dark energy is about how to make these concepts accessible to laypeople. -- Writtenonsand 16:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops...
Minor miscalculation... (grins sheepishly) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 22:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

possible banning of this IP address for vandalism
Hi. This is actually my school's IP address, so banning it will ban all of us. I'm sorry that other people at my school are screwing up Wikipedia, but I can assure you the rest of us don't see the "humor" in it. I actually used Wikipedia for my term paper this year. Please don't ban us!!

Maybe not
But Splash shouldn't be reverting back that policy page, especially as I will be blocking and protecting user pages for editors who add fair use images to their user pages. Splash only just started commenting on the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Category:Wikipedia:Blocked_imposters/template
It's a template used by Category:Wikipedia:Blocked_imposters. If you feel it necessary, you could move it to it's talk page and update the subcategory pages. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 13:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've merged the template with its category and deleted the template page. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 14:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Legal threat
It is not a legal threat. A threat is defined as... a conditional statement that the maker does not fully intend to carry out, for example "If you play loud music, I will call the police", assuming that it is too trivial a matter for the police to concern themselves with. Yours sincerely,--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 19:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearly we need to rename the page to No legal threats or promises. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I always enjoy imagining the conversations people supposedly have with their lawyers regarding their cases against Wikipedia, like this one. I am not a lawyer, but I'm not on crack either, and it baffles me what people believe has legal merit. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

More data supporting renaming the page to No legal threats or promises:. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What about Do not in any way bring up legal action over Wikipedia unless you intend not to edit while the situation continues; if you do not comply, we will block you for no reason except because we are oppressive cabalist rouge admins muahahaha you cannot stop us...? A bit too long, maybe?  -- SCZenz 01:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Idea
When you hit your milestone consider converting your page to an user friendly environment. For example look at my personal page, and see how I cross the wiki platforms seamlessly. Paul.Paquette

AfC
but literally tonnes of those redirects exist. VfD for instance. Zzzzzzzzzzz 02:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you know the answer to this
This question I asked. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Technical_FAQ&diff=prev&oldid=37186893 DyslexicEditor 08:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

T. Casey Brennan
http://pweb.netcom.com/~mthorn/clinton.htm

Block
I guess you're right. I'll give them a warning.--Fil e Éireann 00:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Donnie Darko
Have you seen the movie Donnie Darko? Did you like it? What did you think of it? Explain it all to me, meaning and everything.

Freestylefrappe case closed
The request for arbitration you filed against Freestylefrappe has been closed. Freestylefrappe is desysoped with immediate entitlement to reapply for adminship whenever he desires. Johnleemk | Talk 17:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

User Against Saud
I saw that you deleted this template. Having previously gone through templates for deletion I had thought the matter was now closed. As far as I can see this deletion did not go through templates for deletion or anything so (and forgive me if I have completely misunderstood the way wikipedia works) by what justification did you delete it? --Horses In The Sky 12:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You might also look at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. --Henrygb 16:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That page was on my watchlist, and I saw that it was tagged for deletion. It fit what I determined to be a valid speedy criterion, so I deleted it.  I admit I wasn't aware of the section Henrygb links to above&mdash;however, I'd hardly say I went on a deletion spree. -- SCZenz 18:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway and arbitration
The point I am trying to make is that I'd rather not have to be watching the proceedings like a hawk. I'd much rather be working in article space. I'm a prolific editor, and even my contribution pales into insignificance compared to the apparently limitless time that Tony is able to devote. An arbitration is meant to be about the facts, cleanly presented.

Looking back to my arbitration, the strategy is pretty clear: Put thousands of words of text on the workshop page. Propose insane remedies, like banning. Remove material that diverts from the chosen narrative. Since there is a limited amount of time that other editors are willing or able to devote, something is sure to stick. Since they will (in all likelyhood) respond only to the most egregious sections, proposals and findings that would have no chance if presented on their own will pass.

I could make comparisons to a denial of service attack, or to the famous "more soldiers than you have bullets" quote, but in the end the result is the same: Arbitration is not a soapbox, and the decisions should be based upon quality, not quantity.

<font color="#000000">brenneman <font color="#000000">{T} {L}  01:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, I rarely agree with Aaron Brenneman (sorry!), and I do think that Tony Sidaway is in the right in the ArbCom case is question, but I have to say I actually am quite uncomfortable with the amount of Workshop editing Tony is doing. I think Aaron has some legitimate points here; I'm not sure what could be some about it. Really, I guess I dislike the whole open Workshop notion of ArbCom cases to begin with: shouldn't people just provide evidence, not try to sway the committee toward conclusions? &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I tend to think the arbitrators are clever enough to sort things out themselves. If someone writes a lot of stuff that makes no sense, it won't help and might even hurt them.  And there is a real problem, even with the expanded committee, of there not being time for arbitrators to write everything themselves.  Plus I'm not sure Aaron (or other people) would be any happier with a clerk organizing things in this case.  But all that being said, I don't support Tony deleting/moving other peoples' material&mdash;someone else should do that. -- SCZenz 04:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-Politics
Hey SCZenz, thanks for your concern, just a few points


 * 1) After Joeyramoney, newbies aren't sacred cows anymore it seems -- they may be targeted at anytime I fear, and I want to make sure they know what's going on just in case.
 * 2) Why does the political situation have to be so toxic? That's something I hope to solve by potentially getting some new blood involved with it.
 * 3) There isn't really anyplace else I could canvass to get signatures for my manifesto -- the Village Pump seems like little more than a bitch session, and almost everybody I know on here is either part of the Cabal or scared of the Cabal it seems.(If there's a place where I can go instead of the 99.7% of Wikipedia that isn't obsessive like we are, please let me know)
 * 4) I need to do something to fix things around here, and this is the best I feel that I can do right now in regards to that.

Thanks, please let me know if I can assist more, or if we can collaborate on my petition to help make it more effective.

Karm a  fist  03:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll Take A Break From It
I know you have my best intentions in mind, my friend, so i'll stop it, at least for a few weeks to see if I can gain some numbers from the established community. As per some of the things you said...


 * I've never advocated for Democracy, i've advocated for sociocracy, which we already do on discussion(afd,rfc,rfa,etc.) pages
 * I'd like nothing more than to have a discussion with Jimbo, but from the past few weeks, I think his ego has grown too big in regards to things. I hope i'm wrong on that, but that's just how it looks from here.
 * As for infallibility, nobody is infallible. Everyone makes mistakes. We shouldn't have a system that ignores that.
 * The Cabal: They're just a group of people, like any other. I've seen groups of people come and go, they're not invincible. The key with me is shifting the focus away from personalities and towards ideals and policies that are as objective as possible.

Ok, more later, but let's keep the discussion going. Please, if you could, spread that discussion around. That's the only way we'll avoid repeats of all the crises we've kept on seeing in the past few months. Karm a  fist  06:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The Jimbo Comment
I wish i just took a second to cool down before i wrote that.

My point was that Jimbo, in his wisdom, wanted the userboxes, which are POV, to come down, making user space more NPOV. So, if 'Good Old' Jimbo wants everything to be NPOV, like no more userboxes, then his stance wasn't very. It was less logical flaw and more sarcasm.

As i said, i was angry at the time, so i was just venting spleen. I didn't mean all the things said, so don't think about it too much. Right now i'm just trying not to get banned by the admins.

The Halo Talk 00:06 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Geykido Comet Records
Hi! Please see revision to "groundbreaking" sentence. Please let me know if this works or if I should simply delete this section of the sentence. THANK YOU! Madangry 20:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello! More revisions have been made and the word "groundbreaking" taken out completely due to no source available to credit this word usage. =) Madangry 22:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Internet vs. World Wide Web
I am failing to see the different between the internet and world wide web and was wondering if you might help clarify things for me. Is the internet the pathway that the world wide web uses to transmit data. In other words, the world wide web is a program that uses the internet? Any help would be greatly appriciated. Thanks.--Geppy 04:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

question
I am sorry i am relitively new if you could give me some pointers i would be thankful SaintDante 00:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. SaintDante 00:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:OFFICE
I would like to point out that many of the other "official policies," most notably WP:NPOV were originally written by Jimbo and accepted by the community over time. Shall we subst and change the heading box on these as well? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

My Petition
Thank you for your message on my talk page, I appreciate your viewpoint, but I disagree with it mostly. However, i'd be glad to extend that moratorium forever if the points of the manifesto could eventually become a constitution for Wikipedia, a Bill of Rights, generally accepted by the community and moved into project space with the caveat that anyone can add to it given that they get 10 or so supporters(that might change over time, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.)

I'd also gladly extend the moratorium, for say, a week, if you'd like to continue to discuss other ways that I can get more people to sign it or get more pressure for the reform of Wikipedia as a whole. I never want to see what happened to Joeyramoney ever happen to anyone again, and I believe the only way we can avoid that is to have a real structure in place, even if it's a skeleton just to lean on in case of emergency. Unfortunately, until that happens, I can't give up my efforts entirely, I can only postpone them. Karm a  fist  19:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we can always agree to disagree, and please remember that despite what you said on the re-rfa and the fact that I disagree with you on this, I still respect you. I've found the village pump and the e-mail list to be little more than gossip mongering trollbait stations, so I doubt anything will come of them, and I can't think of another way either. As per what you said about the Wikimedia Foundation, a fork is not out of the question if it gets bad enough. Other language Wikipedias have forked. I'd prefer to avoid that, as well as the "ugly" situation you talked about, but give me an option, man. Karm  a  fist  20:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words, if we cut cut back some of them, but keep the core of the reforms, i'd have no problem with that, but once again, that's too vague to do right away, and you'd have to show me the broad support.
 * As for the "Wiki-community", I honestly don't think they'll change unless they get a jostle from reality, but i'm more than willing to be pleasantly surprised.
 * As for Jimbo, that's an odd situation, he's a very nice guy, but I don't believe he's infallible, whether he owns the servers or not. Nobody's infallible. Even the Pope, although he likes to think so.
 * That's another snag my cause has kind of hit on, this reminds me of the Meiji Restoration, it's not a straight forward "off with his head" kind of revolution. Except for a few extremists, nobody's saying that Jimbo should be out of the picture, I just believe that Jimbo's ideals are far more important than him, and I still believe that he'd say so as well. Karm  a  fist  21:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Klingon
You talked a bit on my page months or weeks ago. I made a Klingon language userbox. Take a look on my userpage and what do you think? I'm surprised no one had this before. There is all caps as a language (which is not. Maybe AOL-netspeak would be kind of a language). DyslexicEditor 08:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Commons
Why don't you load up your pictures to Commons. I uploaded some. See commons:Large Hadron Collider commons:CERN. -- Harp 16:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The Moratorium's Over
this says it all. You're my friend, and you'll always be my friend in one way or another, but if you get in the way of me having an opinion, I will ignore you and everyone else to the point that eventually the Cabal drives me off Wikipedia, because my only apparent crime is going against their group think, and that's not a blockable offense, but they'd love to do so anyway.

Give me another option,and i'll be glad to take it. I'll wait until talking to Jimbo again before restarting again. Karm a  fist  02:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
The "third option" you described equals failure, and I am not going to attempt to go down that path. So, that leaves us with three options.


 * 1) I continue to petition newbies in order to hasten the eventual collision of the real world with the "wiki world" as well as to help newbies avoid becoming the next Joeyramoney, all the while with those in the cabal trying to brand this behavior as harrassment because their new insight could relieve the toxicity of the current climate as well as offer a potentially unharnessed counterweight to their control similiar to the Proles in Nineteen Eighty-Four.
 * 2) There's another way, and nothing like Joeyramoney or Leonig Mig or Redwolf 24 or especially what I have gone through will ever have to happen again, primarily through a standardization of rules and guidelines as well as a standardization towards the way to change or impliment those rules and guidelines, so we can avoid things such as the little flash mob you may or may not have inadvertently tried to gather to try and hang me. Having an opinion isn't a blockable offense? Who cares! Let's get enough people to assume it is and block for it anyway.
 * 3) That wiki-martyrdom option you talked about. I love this place, and I hope that doesn't happen, but I blanked for a reason, last night I actually got physically sick just being around Wikipedia, particularly what you did. I'd rather sacrifice myself in the hopes that things improve despite my love for this place rather than be an instrument of a system which is used primarily to harm others, similiar to Usenet after Eternal September.

I don't think you're in the cabal, I think you have my best intentions at heart even if you and me still aren't quite connecting here, but I could think you're in the cabal if you'd like me to. Nothing's going to change: Give me another way, or get out of my way. I haven't gotten a chance to talk to Jimbo yet, so don't worry, you still have time to think of another way. Karm a  fist  20:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Consistency
Pigsonthewing is a perfect example of what i'm talking about, WP:CIVIL, like the rest of them is vague, especially WP:NPA(which he tried to invoke every 5 seconds as a strawman), and as a result, I was left to interpret it as best I could, which others of the 700 and now 800 admins would interpret likewise or differently depending on their perception.

I'm pissed off that anyone should be forced to be a judge or be judged by such an arbitrary system, and i've been on both sides, so I know the faults of it. Pigsonthewing was a clear example of how the system doesn't work. He edit warred 3 editors off the project during a year long edit war at Birmingham, He made one editor afraid to edit under his own username for fear of harrassment for a long period of time(Leonig Mig), and then not only does he not even bother to respond to his rfc, but he also doesn't bother to respond to his rfar, and it almost works, holding out for several months before the Arbcom finally realizes what should have taken maybe a week at most and decided that he had no intention of contributing to the encyclopedia in good faith but rather just using it as a battleground.

If there was any clarity or justice in how this place was governed, it would have saved me, POTW, and everyone who tried to help redeem him(CBDunkerson, who I consider my Wiki-John the Baptist for showing me the dark side of myself and offering me an alternative), and everyone POTW hurt alot of time and aggrevation. Karm a  fist  21:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Step Back For A Second
This isn't about WP:CIVIL, or any of the other policies/guidelines, because these problems will continue on multiple fronts if they continue to be so vague that they're not respected.

I need to go soon, but I think in analogies, so here's one that may be able to crystallize my thought process and perhaps clarify it so you can improve on it.

Take money. What is it? Ultimately, it's just little slips of paper that one day rulers of a government decided would be equal to gold, which in itself originally had value because it was highly malleable and could be formed into many things and was beautfiul, thus being a prized possession in ornamentation and artwork. After Richard Nixon, currency was no longer bound to a metal in the United States, but the concept of currency had a few thousand years of common acceptance within the mindset of the average human, so no other concept of daily economical transferrence seemed possible.

When you go down to the corner store to buy some gum, you're not worried about whether or not your money will have value more likely than not since it's had generations of trust and respect in its role as a substitute for actual resources built into it and subconsiously into yourself. Once that trust is gone, it's just a piece of paper, useless for just about everything other than perhaps wiping your ass.

The same thing goes with our laws. Most of them are generally followed, but many, like jaywalking and most speed limits, aren't followed that well. Why is that? It's my belief that it's just like with the belief in currency, that if it's more convenient and productive to follow the law, then people most likely will in return for assistance from the government in place. If it isn't or the rewards are greater than the percieved risks inherent in breaking that law, then those laws will be broken. It's far more convenient to use money than to carry around stuff to barter, but if that money is worthless, you have to carry around that stuff.

No matter how much Wikipedia wants to think it's "different from reality", it isn't, there are just some nuances here and there that make it a different shade of reality. The same basic human instincts are there, and right now, most of the policies and guidelines here fall into the latter category above, either because there are loopholes to them or they don't make sense or they're paradoxically cancelled out by equally vague policies and guidelines. The faith that most users have in them has eroded to nearly nothing not just because they aren't being enforced, but they can't be properly enforced, not with the way things are now.

It's almost like you going to get a piece of paper, writing "1 dollar bill" on it and then expecting me to accept it as a one dollar bill, even if you got 20 or 30 people to do so as well and expected me to succumb to confirmation bias. That just ain't happening. The same thing goes with our policies and guidelines here. Somebody makes one up, and then, somehow it magically just becomes commonly accepted over time unless somebody changes bits or piece of it, which they can do at will.(this is a wiki after all.)

Now tell me, if I gave you that piece of paper with "1 dollar bill" written on it and you can accept that as a substitute for US legal tender, I will accept the current policies and guidelines here. Until then, they're almost entirely meaningless. Karm a  fist  21:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think he's saying that our current rules and policies aren't worth the paper they aren't printed on, since they haven't been formulated (and protected from change) via a rigid governmental process. They are all like the bad, poorly-enforced laws, and not at all like the stable things that work well, like money.


 * (Commentary: in other words, throw Use Common Sense (the real meaning of IAR) out the window and demand a formal ruleset for every possible action. Great.) &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Synchrotron radiation facilities
Hi,

I definitely think that Synchrotron radiation facilities is a better name for the category. I was about to move the catogory manually, but if you can do it automatically, that's even better. I've also moved List of light sources to List of synchrotron radiation facilities, which I'm editing extensively ATM.

Karmafist's welcomes
Karmafirst welcomed about 50 new accounts this morning with his welcome message with the links to his manifesto and wikiphilosophies pages. I've opened up an RfA on the issue (Request for arbitration). If you have anything to add, please do. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Karmafist
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Karmafist. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Karmafist/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Karmafist/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 17:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 23:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Permanent
Permanent is fine for me, my goal is not to pick fights, but like I now say in my sig, to save Wikipedia in any way I can. However, I gotta admit, that rfar was a great soapbox moment ;-) Karm  a  fist Save Wikipedia 18:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, now all we have to do is figure out how to close an RfArb as settled-out-of-court, I guess. Are there precedents? Do we have to get the approval of everybody who's edited the danged thing? &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, I hope it's a precedent we can repeat many more times :-) Karm  a  fist Save Wikipedia 21:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's up to the arbitrators now. I kind of wish you had gone with this idea a little sooner, Karmafist, but anyway I'll put in my two cents on the arbitration page and see if they'll drop it.  -- SCZenz 21:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Me too, at least I wish there was a way I felt I could have done it without feeling bullied into it. The way I got there this way seemed like a compromise. Karm  a  fist Save Wikipedia 22:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

UCLA
Thanks for your diligence with University of California, Los Angeles. The anon editor is now reverting whole blocks of text in addition to the images. Last year we had an editor, maybe the same guy, who kept removing the snowy picture. One way or another we outlasted that phase. I can only guess that this person will eventually find something better to do with his or her life. We can put it back on semi-protect, but unregistered users do make contributions to the article so that is not ideal either. What'd be best is if we could get his user to talk about the images and address his issues. What do encyclopedias and group therapy have in common? Hmmm. Anyway, if it gets worse I can check around to see if other editors or admins have suggestions. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Apology
You're right. I got a message from GMaxwell, construed it as a threat, and got frustrated and let that out through my edit summaries. I know I have a temper, but that's not an excuse. If i've lost you after my inability to control that rage against the feeling of powerlessness that I and so many others(recently Guanaco has been feeling like this from hearing him in IRC).

I can't think of anything else to say right now. If the system can be reformed from the inside, I will follow you, but I have unfortunately lost faith to any real reforms happening through established channels, and i'm going to be timid in that aspect. I'll say more later when i'm better able, but please know that whether your views of me are negative or positive, my views of you are mostly positive, despite our disagreements. Karm a  fist Save Wikipedia 18:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2
Thanks for pointing that out, I've disabled the autorevert / warn for now but if things get bad I'll re-enable it regardless of this rare bug occurance (mostly squid showing up.) Again, thanks! -- Tawker 20:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Particle physics
Ihave read the article ATLAS experiment and I like it very much. (I made a not fully complete Hungarian translation as well.) I think that there is a lot of photo, but we need figures as well. I made a figure about the detector layers. Perhaps it would be good for the ATLAS experiment with a small modification. I put this picture at Hungarian Wikipedia into the particle detector article, but I think that there should be an onw article about composit detectors. (How can we measure velocity, momentum? What means calorimeters, trace detectors... History of composite particle detectors.)

I collected the pictures about Particle physics - acceleraters - detectors at Commons. Perhaps it will be useful for you as well.

If you have any suggesstion, you can write it here to me. -- Harp 10:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

SSC
A blog I read: http://capitalistimperialistpig.blogspot.com/2006/03/stalinist-history-of-superconducting.html William M. Connolley 21:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)