User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive January 2004

Welcome to anal sex
Hey Jack :) I hope you like the place and choose to stay.

Some links that may be of use:
 * Welcome, newcomers
 * How to edit a page
 * Village pump - ask questions you may have here, or leave a message on my talk page

Just a point, it's not a good idea to remove comments on talk pages. If you want to edit the article, you should do so at Anal sex and not at Talk:Anal sex, which is where users discuss the actual article itself! :)

Keep contributing! :) Dysprosia 07:38, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

hi JackLynch 10:37, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

don't be shy!
Read Be bold in updating pages :) Kingturtle 03:11, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Jean Chretien
I don't think that's very comical at all, if you are referring to the Bell's palsy. Of course, I know what you are actually trying to say, and in that case I don't think that's really appropriate for an encyclopedia... Adam Bishop 03:34, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Eckernförde
There was nothing wrong with it, that's why I was trying to undelete it. RickK 19:04, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

AKFD
It was only the lower case version (AIDS kills fags dead) that was deleted. AIDS Kills Fags Dead still exists. There was a vote going on since July, and the most recent vote came up with 89% in support of deletion. I can't see anything at Talk:Anti-gay slogan relating to this particular redirect being needed. As a slogan, it would be capitalised, so there would seem little benefit in also keeping the lower case variant of it as well. If you want to contest the deletion, you could do so at Talk:AKFD/redirect, but you may want to read the previous discussion on it first which you can find on that page and in the various archives linked to from that page. Angela 03:41, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've replied to your point at Talk:AKFD/redirect. Angela 03:59, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I just tend to get a bit defensive about deletions I make. Regarding how deletions occur, you could check out Deletion policy. Undeletions usually go through Votes for undeletion but with something that has had as much discussion at this, it's best to raise it on that Talk:AKFD/redirect page before going to VfU I think. Regarding the search - it's been switched off for a few months because the servers can't handle it. I'm not sure what you mean by can I give you a link to the "wiki resouce problems". Maybe the bug reports on sourceforge? If you mean you want to help fix them, then there is a mailing list and a section on Meta for developers. Hope that helps. Angela 07:32, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Don't call ed a taterhead
Dear Jack, i understand you concern and i'll leave a message in the Conflict users page regarding my red pencil. All the best Muriel Victoria 08:26, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC) Actually i'm not leaving a message in wikc :). The discussion is long and nobody will notice it anyway. I did it because i dont like seeing Ed Poor or other users being called names, no mather what. Any way, i left a message and if you check the Page history, you'll see that the removals are easy to find by the comment. Cheers, Muriel

VfD header on close votes
Hi Jack -- A lot of us (myself included) have concerns about how much attention gets focused on Votes for deletion, and that there are a lot of negative, anti-wiki aspects to the page -- despite its seeming necessity. Personally, I don't like the idea of an ad-hoc "make it so" deletion squad, and don't feel it's appropriate that the page itself has people listed near the top who can be called upon to push a vote over the edge it it's close. I decided not to join in the mini edit war over removing the message, but I may still offer my two cents. For more on my feelings on the whole issue, see deletionism, inclusionism, and especially this post I made on the mailing list. -- Thanks, BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 23:49, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. As you wrote, I have detected a certain elitist atmosphere at the wikipedia where some feel they and their vote (or opinion, etc...) are more equal than those of others, and that the opinions of some are not needed at all ;) I want to say that I'm sorry if what I said above sounded elitist, and I do wish to be clear that I don't in any way feel that your opinions or contributions are less important than anyone else's. I'm addressing what seems to me to be a completely different issue. I'm opposed to what I see as a group of people (and it doesn't matter to me who is part of that group) that's called upon to delete articles in case of a close vote. I might feel differently if those listed were listed "to solicit our opinions/votes" or something of that sort. But I can't get away from the feeling that it would function as a sort of "hit squad" in case of close votes. I hope this is a bit more clear than what I wrote earlier.... Thanks, BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 03:39, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Aha! I didn't (of course) make the comment you're referring to, but I do remember it. Thanks for the explanation and the clarification. BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 04:03, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Jack, re your comments on Conflicts between users... I think you may be getting paranoid over nothing. You want a place where you can be notified that a deletion may be taking place... but that is precisely what the Votes for Deletion is for... no-one can go around deleting articles without their being five days for people to object. At the end of five days, someone just takes the pulse of whatever discussion is going on there and acts accordingly. Your opinion definitely will be respected.

Also I don't think having a notification list is a good idea. Why should some people be on it and not others? Shouldn't someone interested in deletion issues be reading Votes for Deletion? It's hardly fair to expect someone else to read it for you and then come trotting along to let you know something interesting is happening (there is always something interesting happening!). Just my 2p. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:39, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Merging
Hi Jack. At VfD you suggested merging Palestinian views of the peace process somewhere rather than deleting it. Can you let me know where you actually wanted it merged so this can be done and the page removed from VfD. Thanks. Angela. 19:54, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Until someone does merge them, I've left it as a redirect. The material is still available in the page history should anyone actually want to do this task. The problem with VfD is that people often say "merge", but then no-one actually wants to bother doing the merging. Angela. 21:18, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * No, merging page histories is something only a sysop can do, but such a thing is rarely done as it messes with the flow of the history and potentially destroys any proper GFDL attribution. Unless it is a really simple merge, the normal approach is to manually cut and paste the content (stating in the edit summary where the info came from) and then redirect the original page to the page where the info now resides. Matters are complicated if the original title was so bad it needs deleting or if the redirect would be inappropriate (Chip Row to Cardiff for example), but in this case, I think the redirect is fine, so anyone can do the merging. As both Palestine and Palestinian views of the peace process have long histories, merging them would make no sense, as the difs would end looking like someone was constantly reverting between two completely different articles. It's only when there is no overlap in the editing time between two documents that a full history merge will work properly. Hope that makes sense. Let me know if not. Angela. 21:33, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

List of Notable Offended Nazi's
Hi. Your change to Nazism imparts your subjective view that calling someone eg. a "feminazi" is _only_ offensive to jews. I reinstated with my reversion of your edit that it is potentially anyone, but in particular those that have been persecuted by Nazis that could be offended. I find calling someone a nazi, when they are not a nazi to be offensive. And I'm not in any of the groups (communists, homosexuals, jews, mentally handicapped) that was persecuted by the nazis. My removal of your speculation about offense to former nazis is justified on the basis that the sentence is speculation. It can of course be reinserted if there is any evidence of a former or neonazi taking offense to adjective use of the term "Nazi" to refer to clearly non-nazi persons or groups. --snoyes 04:51, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * I think just leaving the specifics of who might be offended away is the best solution. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the subject can extrapolate who would be offended by such usage of the word "nazi". Thanks for changing it. --snoyes 15:17, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Heroes
Hi. Taking this off the VfD page as I've already taken up enough space there. It is not my intention that my POV be substituted for yours in the article, I was just trying to get more specific as you had, perhaps rightly, complained that the objections raised were inadequate. I would suggest that your own confident assertions re heroes may not stand up to a wide range of debate and that this list is more likely to be contentious than utilitarian. Heroes are not of necessity participants in war, many might consider Gandhi, for instance, a hero. Where would conscientious objectors stand in your list? Again, many might consider them true war heroes. Bmills 10:57, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Here's the Canbridge definition of hero:

Definition hero (PERSON) (plural heroes)  [Show phonetics] noun [C] 1 (FEMALE heroine) a person who is admired for having done something very brave or having achieved something great: a war hero He became a national hero for his part in the revolution. HUMOROUS Graham says he'll take my parents to the airport at four o'clock in the morning - what a hero! See also anti-hero.

2 (FEMALE heroine) the main male character in a book or film who is usually good: the hero of her latest novel

3 someone who you admire greatly: Humphrey Bogart's my hero - I've seen every one of his films.

Not all to do with war, you'll agree. And as for Gandhi not being a hero??????

If the article is not deleted, well and good. Bmills 11:19, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Not changing my vote, just mean I'm happy to accept whatever consensus emerges on VfD. Bmills 11:50, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for seconding my self-nomination and for your compliments. They were very nice to read.168... 07:44, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I tried
... and then meta swallowed my post and gave me a 404. Ugh. I'm off Wikipedia till it speeds up again, I think. Martin 23:28, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

RK
Good question. Why do we tolerate such abuse? -- Viajero 00:49, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your brief reply a couple of days ago. I haven't added anything yet to Conflicts not because I have been feeling less strongly about the matter, but because
 * I have recently discussed RK quite a bit in another forum (wikien-l) and neither do I have anything particuarly new to say at this point nor do I want to appear to be on a jihad, and because
 * I wonder whether posting on the Conflicts page has much purpose. It sets no pre-defined mechanism in motion to deal with conflict. Various times I have seen issues raised there, sometimes acrimonious exchanges take place, and then basically things just peter out, unless of course a "problem" user fits in the narrowly-defined categories of vandals or trolls. For contributors who are what I would call "sub-vandals" -- useful contributors who don't respect the norms of social interaction, such as the case in question -- there are virtually no mechanisms in place to address them and the sometimes signficant problems created by their behaviour. Hence, as you see, there are a number of divisive contributors here who leave a trail of discord in their edits and collectively we cannot do anything except complain. I think the critical issue, especially given the project's steady growth, is whether processes can be devised to handle such problems while not impinging on the openness of the system. Since this looks unlikely and since its openness is one of the chief attractions of this environment, people are immobilized.
 * Well, that's my view on things. -- Viajero

Talk:Communism
The last version is at least in better context. Stalinism by itself, i.e., not as a member of the "quadrille" has a totally different meaning. IMO one should not confuse an idealistic "communism" theory and the actual results of its implementation (even if one can prove the results are direct consequence of consistent application of the theory.) Maoism is another "implementation" of Communism, different from "Stalinism". What is more, "stalinism" was never theory. Good luck! Mikkalai 05:38, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Re: Classical Pantheism
Thanks. I didn't think it was the same, either; but since I might have been mistaken, I thought it wise to leave a note saying so. Rasmus Faber 13:08, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Socialism and nazism
Hi,

there's been a recent flamewar on the Socialism page about the inclusion of nazism in the list of "types of socialism" between Adam Carr and Lir, with other users joining in later. We have now moved most of the discussion of the two systems to Socialism and Nazism, and instead of including Nazism directly in the list, it is briefly discussed in a separate paragraph on Socialism. This seems like the most reasonable NPOV compromise. Can you agree with that?--&mdash;Eloquence 04:08, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)

Just curious...
I promise I'm not being combative, I just was hoping you could clarify something. Based on your comments at RfA about Mydog..., I cannot tell whether you believe the username is "obviously offensive" or "offensive to you personally". I find the distinction relevant, and so I was hoping you could clarify for me which it is. If it is honestly offensive to you, then I must assume you are a theist. Could you explain, then, to me (a fellow theist, and a dedicated one) how particularly it offends you? As I said above, I'm not starting an argument--honest! I just have been trying to figure out the opposing side's argument, because I'm always trying to keep people from offending each other here (when I can), and this is one of the few cases where I honestly just don't see it. Any help you can provide would be very appreciated. Jwrosenzweig 21:47, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi.
This is an acknowledgement that I have seen your message on my talkpage. I will have to digest it's contents a bit. I will probably reply on my talkpage, or on the talkpage of "requests for mediation", as soon as I get my head screwed on the right way round. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 15:25, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

Ditto from me. It's not quite how I envisioned the page but a good starting point. I'll think further and comment on the "requests.." talkpage. Regards -- sannse 23:58, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Mediation
Of course I'm not mad! It's a good page. Thanks for starting it off. By the way, your sig appears very pale. It is meant to be so unreadable? Angela. 18:03, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

It's kind of useful as if I can't see it I know my eyes are getting tired and it reminds me it's time to stop looking at my screen. :) It's ok if you're the only person posting in silver as I know it's you but if other people were doing it, it would make readability an issue. I should possibly just adjust the color settings on my monitor though if I'm the only one having problems seeing it. It's not a big issue. Angela. 21:27, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, but you should also know that Tim mentioned on IRC that light grey on yellow is really hard to read. :) Angela. 04:42, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

God
You're a clown. "God" refers to a specific god, "god" refers to any old god. - Lord Kenneth 02:46, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

Brianism
I do not know if you are watching Brianism Talk, but it is fair that you should see this: An Open Letter from Rex Mundi, co-founder of Brianism. In view of this, I have changed my vote to Delete. Link has apparently been "e-mailed to participants in the discussion", but not posted on WP by the writer - which is why I am doing it. I also do not see how the writer would have all the e-mail addresses involved. Kind regards, Anjouli 13:56, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Siggies
Sorry to spoil the playfulness, but could you remove the manual font from your signature. It's really bad for accessibility: remember that some Wikipedians will have various degrees of colour-blindness. Also, it's bad for usability to have a seperate colour that doesn't indicate indicate any information - one of the main rules of usability is to remove "non-data ink". Martin 18:22, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Martin 20:59, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Amalek
Yes, they needed to be combined. I did some editing and rearrangement of Amalek; not sure it is finished yet. --Zero 10:07, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Please see the new information I added in the talk page at the Amalek article. RK 00:04, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

Replies
Hello. I've left replies for you on my talk page and Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation. Regards -- sannse 13:10, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:Optim
You welcome. you may communicate with me any time you like. I think you had some interest in Rosicrucians and similar topics so I suppose you may have relevant questions in the future. I will be glad to answer them, if I know the answer, so feel free to ask me. by the way my email is optim81 AT yahoo.co.uk Optim 02:56, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Socialism and Nazism
Jack: Your changes to the Socialism and Nazism page made earlier today (January 19) create a problem. You are using socialism and communisim interchangeably. I see two problems with that: 1) we have separate pages for the two political philosophies. We thus need to show the differences between them.  2) If we say that socialism and communism are the same, how do we then refer to the socialist states of Europe?

You also say: "The view that the Nazis were socialists is held by many." Can you point me to some material that supports this? We will need references for everything we say in this article because it is contentious. If we say something that cannot be backed up, it will not stand. Sunray 07:34, 2004 Jan 20 (UTC)

Reply at User talk:sannse
Hi Jack, I've left another reply at my talk page. Regards -- sannse 17:39, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

NP
Jack: No problem, and thanks for taking it in the spirit it was intended. It seems that you and Bryan are reasonable enough to come to a constructive compromise on Atheism given a bit of a breather. - Scooter 21:53, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Conflicts between users
Jack, some of your comments at Conflicts between users are getting very confrontational and contentious. Frankly, I think you hurt your case by doing so. In the past I've seen you take a step back from the fray and rise above it: I'm impressed by your ability to do so (many Wikipedians are relentless in continuing to argue and fight long after everyone else wants it to stop). I hope you can do so now. I think that, in time, these complaints will disapear assuming you continue to contribute positively here. I do not think User:Tannin abused his/her position...Tannin isn't trying to smear you, in my opinion, but to ensure that no one feels their concerns are not adequately being addressed. I doubt that much more will be said at CBU if you do not antagonize people there. I have some respect for you, Jack, though we haven't always agreed (perhaps because we haven't!), and I think you have a lot to offer the community here. I hope you'll take this note in the spirit I intend it: as a suggestion from someone who has your best interests (and Wikipedia's) in mind, and with the goal of ending controversy and letting us all do what we do best...create an encyclopedia and inform the world. If you are being unfairly accused, please let me know, and I'll do what I can to see that false accusations against you are minimized or ended. Jwrosenzweig 00:48, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, staying calm and lengthening the decision cycle (the time between your own edits or comments) is the way to go. That gives time for others to notice and intervene. Just be calm, maybe limit yourself to an edit per day, and let the validity of your arguments prevail. Jamesday 02:58, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Female ejaculation
Yes, you can see from talk there why I decided that it would be better to get other people involved rather than persevering alone. Peer review is a useful tool for recruiting assistance when one contributor has views contrary to generally accepted facts and it beats a one on one dispute. With respect to the message just above this one, do try to be really calm in disputes - it makes it much more likely that you will prevail by persuading others that your points have greater merit. Haven't read the details of what is being talked about, though. Jamesday 02:11, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Confused, but nonetheless majestic... Lizards
Where is the link to your talk page? Lizard King 06:55, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jack. Lizard King posted the above text to your user page. I moved it here, as other people's user pages are generally considered off limits to anyone except the user. It is kinda funny, though. --snoyes 07:16, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hilarious.Lizard King 09:26, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Paranthropus

Jack, you seemed to think a rendered image of Paranthropus was a good idea, and here is my feedback concerning the issue:

Not only will they delete it but they will get me banned from wiki. Uther already got the process started. I added an image of a quadrupedal Gigantopithecus to the Gigantopithecus entry and it was deleted within about 3 hours. These ______ seem to be tracking everything I do on this site. I drew a picture of a robust Australopithicine about 6 years ago, that is the same animal that the Paranthropus is. I will see if I can find it (may take a few days) and I will stick it on my user page under a link. If you want you can download it and stick it on the Paranthropus entry and see how long it stays on there before they take it down. I give it a day at most. Lizard King 09:26, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

BTW I appreciate your support of my illustrations.Lizard King 09:26, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:tannin
I am annoyed with this admin, based on my experience with them. Also, there are others (admins and no) who I feel have been less than academic in their response to citations and issues variously contentious to their POV. I do not, however, want anyone De-admin'ed, banned, or otherwise excessively mistreated in response to that, and furthermore, I find the likelihood of any such excesses to be... excessively unlikely ;). What I would like to know is how to legitimately complain about relatively minor issues such as I have had (if you don't know what I am referring to, I suppose you could ask me). The mediation/arbitration process seems rather excessive (besides, its not even really functioning yet) and speaking to Jimbo seems to be a last case scenario, far beyond the measure of intensity this circumstance requires. There is mention, however, of a "clarification" or "request"? Whats that all about? Your thoughts, if you please? (p.s. if this is the wrong place for this, let me know, but it seemed appropriate to me for a few reasons, not the least of which the short lived de'admin requests which I've seen here.) Jack 01:14, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Why do you want to complain if it's a minor issue? Have a little tolerance. Just because someone is annoying doesn't mean you have to search for an ear to whinge into. -- Tim Starling 01:37, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Frankly, nothing. How can on effectively &quot;discipline&quot; someone who donates their time and effort? In the very worst case, you have to ask them to go away, but that's really a big step, and (for all the talk) its something we do very rarely. The way the software is now, there are only two &quot;grains&quot; of user power (user and sysop), so we can optionally move someone from the former to the latter (a big step too, as we have too few people in the latter case, and too much unpleasant work for the sysops to do). Frankly, I think &quot;conflicts between users&quot; and &quot;problem users&quot; are pointless - they just end up as endless bickering matches, into which no sensible wikipedian ever sticks his head.  Arbitration and mediation are just politically-correct ways of saying &quot;decisions about banning&quot; and &quot;knock two stupid heads together&quot;. And my understanding of Jimbo's philosphy (and of quite a lot of wikipedians) is that conflict and chaos have worked to whittle a pretty impressive encyclopedia, and will (presumably) do so in the future. I'm absolutely not suggesting or encouraging you to leave (really!) but this is the fundamental difference between wikipedia and h2g2&amp;everything2 - they're much more &quot;process oriented&quot;, and we're just a big cloud of people yelling at one another. I suppose the fact (it is a fact, I think) that wikipedia is so much larger and more popular than either of the other two bears out Jimbo's philosphy (as I've horribly misprepresented it above). The unpleasant result of this is that attrition is comparatively high, particularly in the more controversial subject areas. This is, in essence, a tough place. -- Finlay McWalter 01:48, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree 100%. And don't worry, I'm not planning on going anywhere. I was just hoping there would/could be some ear eager for the whining ;) People who know me IRL often comment on my steady stream of complaints. Indeed, one of the reasons (IMO) I get hasselled so little IRL is that I get so upset over petty things (lack of tea, for example), that nobody wants to see how I'd handle something seriously upsetting ;) Anyways, I agree w both of you, and my complaints are fairly minor, and I don't want any real discipline to occur (as far as the admins go) in result of them. I was hoping there was some sort of &quot;official scolding&quot; that could occur, but from the sounds of it thats not really available. Alas... Jack 18:28, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)

Don't the admins have a Lieutenant, or some sort of boss, between them and Jimbo? Somebody who scolds, but doesn't fire? Just wondering... if not, there should be! Jack 18:30, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)


 * Jack, some people are annoying. There's nothing you can do about that, but Wikipedia is big enough that you can probably just avoid them. All I can suggest is that you try not to edit the same articles that Tannin is working on for a while. See if you can avoid him or anyone else that annoys you. If you really can't help bumping into him, try working on one of the other Wikimedia projects for a while instead. I'm not saying I agree with your dispute with Tannin, but I can sympathise with the way you are feeling. I had to resign my adminship and quit Wikisource because one person got on my nerves too much, and unlike Wikipedia, that project was not big enough to avoid that user. Angela. 18:44, Jan 24, 2004 (PST)

It is a bit confusing here why tolerance is to be afforded by Jack, and why Jack is to avoid working in the vicinity of Tannin. Why is Tannin not instructed to show tolerance, and to avoid working on articles where he gets into conflicts?

Jack, I would not (nor did I :) ) hesitate to recommend deadminship. It's not like you're asking to put them in jail for 90 days, and a few admins certainly don't hestitate to call troll and ban any user who dares challenge their prestige. Of course, only later did I learn that asking for deadmiship is a wikicrime. That makes the request for deadminship page a nice little trap for those sysops who like to pick edit fights then switch to an admin hat. As soon as you complain, then they can ban you for complaining, or for defending your complaint. (anonymous)

IRC

 * If you mean the "Nazis are not Socialists" thing, that was me, so take it up with me. Danny's pretty busy. - Hephaestos 04:19, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sentance
I write because I've seen you make that spelling error at least 3 or 4 times; it's "sentence", not "sentance" ;)

Quote:
 * (diff) (hist) . . Scientific skepticism; 21:11 . . JackLynch (Talk) (adding sentance)

--MikeCapone 04:14, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)

Vanity Pages
Hello Jack - I've been reading your comments on Votes for deletion. I in no way am trying to censor your opinions, which you are of course entirely entitled to, but your comment "# Keep. "Vanity pages" should not be deleted." does appear to go against the accepted Wikipedia policy What Wikipedia is not of not allowing people to set up pages to promote themselves unless they are genuinly famous. Even if it were Bill Gates himself who was editing Wikipedia, I'd hope he wouldn't create a page called Bill Gates' Successes, and leave that for someone else to do. AlbertJacher created his own page - this is vane, and more seriously makes Wikipedia look like a personal home page space. Thanks for reading Tompagenet 10:55, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC) "A few somewhat famous Wikipedians have significantly contributed to encyclopedia articles about themselves and their accomplishments, and this has mostly been accepted after some debate. But of course the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such a page just like any other." I am an inclusionist. I interpret the above liberally. Wiki is not paper. Any questions? :) Jack 23:19, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * The following is from what wikipedia is not.
 * Thanks for the reply - in my opinion there's not a lot to intepret - vanity pages are just that - these are usually not significant people, just vain ones. And when does the inclusionism end in your opinion - I'm asking, not being sarcastic - I genuinly am intersted Tompagenet 23:41, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, the phrase "vanity page" is opinionated in and of itself. It suggests that you have decided this person is vain, and unworthy of a page. That&#8217;s how you have interpreted it. And the problem is, once deletionists hear that phrase "vanity page" they perk up and type "delete, vanity page" one after the other, until the page is deleted by consensus. I don't like that. The reason I started going to Votes for deletion is that something, an article I had edited was deleted. I would rather keep dubious content, at least as long as there can be improvements made, and a quality article can be produced. Maybe you think that it isn't possible to make an quality article out of these unimportant people, that these people aren&#8217;t important enough? I don't agree. Wiki is not paper. If a quality encyclopedic article can be written, it is worth including. If they are too POV and unbalanced in their (self) description, then research the subject as much as possible, and/or edit as needed. IMO, it would be worth the memory space necessary to create an encyclopedic entry on each of the 6 Billion people of this earth. Do you have any grounds for saying these "vanity pages" are truly impairing the wikipedia in terms of the cost of the space used? Can you make a cost/risk assessment, and explain to me why removing these peoples "vanity pages" (thereby perhaps discouraging them from editing here), is necessary to the financial, or social health of the wikipedia? What is the loss? I clearly see a great deal of potential gain. Jack 00:15, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply - lots of interesting stuff. I'll try to answer you point by point:
 * Vanity is a word meaning excessive pride or conceit. Writing about yourself is vain, but more importantly, the word "excessive" is the key here - if you are really just an ordinary person, like myself, then to believe that I deserve an article in any encylopaedia is vain.
 * It isn't possible to make a quality article out of a lot of these pages - you suggest that the other members of Wikipedia should research these pages and improve them - if I wrote a page then I'm so unknown you would be unable to verify that I'm a skilled civil engineer - am I skilled at it - am I a civil engineer? Even if you do find out the answers to these by trawling google, I challenge anyone to find out if I have a particular interest in solid-state physics - do I? These "facts" are unverifiable because these people just aren't famous in any way.
 * I can very easily demonstrate how what you propose in terms of people being allowed Vanity pages would impair Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a lot to prove - it's very different from other encylopaedias, but we want it to be respected, and most importantly, used by people to learn. People will not be trusting of a resource that has a self-written page by Pete next door being edited. Pete just isn't important, and people will think this is demonstrative of the quality of Wikipedia articles as a whole.
 * Okay - so you propose allowing, at least in theory, a page for all 6.2 billion people on Earth. If each page contains just forty words then we've just used a terabyte of space - I can't see how that's a good use of Wikipedia's limited funds. Imagine searching these pages - how would you make sure that Wikipedia finds the right page when I type in "William Gates" out of the thousands of people who will be called that. You'll probably propose some sort of Google style page-rank system, where the most popularly linked pages appear top of the search results. Well Google today says it is "Searching 3,307,998,701 web pages" - about half the population of earth. Do you have any idea how many computers are required to make Google as fast as it is today. Just because Wikipedia is not paper doesn't mean that we have unlimited funds or resources.
 * For the record, I will happily donate 1 terabyte of hard drive space to Wikipedia if someone writes a page for all 6.2 billion people in the world. I'm sorry, hard drive space is absolutely not a problem.  Jimbo has even said so himself.  No one is going to write 6.2 billion pages.  To run out of space is a problem that would be great for Wikipedia to have.
 * That said, I differ from Jack in that I believe that verifiability is important. I believe that unverifiable people pages should be deleted.  But it is quite common that verifiable articles (such as blah blah is the Professor of blah at blah University) is deleted.
 * Finally, responding to your "William Gates" question, that would be handled like any other disambiguation. In the case of someone as famous as Bill Gates, you'd redirect directly to the page on Bill Gates, and put a link on the bottom saying "there are other people named [Bill Gates (disambiguation)|Bill Gates]."  There's no need for a page rank system because unlike google Wikipedia is edited by hand. Anthony DiPierro 21:55, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm sure many will say "hold on a second - there's no way this would ever be an issue - we just never would get 6 billion people writing articles" - that's almost certainly true, but even if only six million people did it then it would take up substanitial resources. When we start to feel a bit full then which pages would we get rid of? Surely it's best to agree a policy now and stick by it. Tompagenet 12:52, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Six million people at 1K per page is only 6 gigs. We shouldn't get rid of any of the pages.  We just spend the $50 to buy a 60 gig hard drive. Anthony DiPierro 21:55, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Anthony - thanks for the reply - I don't think you appreciated what I said - it's not just storage, it's indexing power of the server. And 1k per page is very small - remember that there are page histories to keep, images, talk pages and probably more. We're not talking $50 dollars to host six million people here... Tompagenet 17:55, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * The impact of 6 million barely used pages on the indexing power of the server is pretty much nonexistent. Talk to the server guys about that, if you don't believe me.  If it actually were a problem, the index could always be turned off for those pages.  But, it just wouldn't be.  If the page has a long page history, or big talk page it's probably popular and shouldn't be deleted in the first place.  And my $50 estimate allowed for an order of magnitude of error.  The incremental cost would be far under $50.  Finally, maybe it would persuade you to see what Jimbo, the guy who was responsible for so long for paying for this project, has to say about it.  See Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance.  "'fame' and 'importance' are not the right words to use, they are merely rough approximations to what we're really interested in, which is verifiability and NPOV."  Anthony DiPierro 22:04, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC) [link changed to reflect page move -- Oliver P. 04:14, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)]
 * It doesn't matter, its still worth it. I love reading about people, and so long as quality of information is possible (and I mean that very generally) nothing should be deleted. Thats actually what the policy is, if you look into it. jimbo doesn't like VfD at all, he appears to me to be an inclusionist. Basically, I want more, not less. It seems to me that the deletionists can't find enough vandalism to keep them busy, and so they feel a need to delete schools, people, etc... How about if you guys spent that time writing articles? ;) Jack 20:30, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Jack, if you think vanity pages should be kept, do you think Katherine Jacobson should have been kept? Make your decision before reading Talk:Daniel C. Boyer/Katherine Jacobson which highlights the problems with keeping vanity pages that can not be verified. Angela. 18:32, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

You both bring up fascinating points. I would have voted to keep Katherines article, and I would have been embaressed after :). The strongest objection appears to me to be summed up in "original research". I will admit you have given me pause to think, quality of information is vital to me, as is the respect given us by our readers. I would ask for you to consider the value of these vain editors, and the unhappiness caused to them (often causing them to cease editing) by the unfriendliness of comments on VfD. Jack 20:31, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe a little more discretion should be used discussing these pages, perhaps 'vanity' should become a word considered inappropriate for VfD. Could I ask whether your support for keeping Miles Elam springs from wanting to even things out on VfD and spare his feelings? It seems to me there can be little other reason for your support for his inclusion, all of the information is totally unverifiable. I can't even establish from searching the internet whether he exists, let alone whether or not he was born in 1974 or whether or not he's transmitting from the Salinas valley. Regards -- Ams80 23:08, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is a different issue from "vanity." Those who propose deleting a page because it is "unverifiable" should list that as the reason, not "vanity."  Take a look at Talk:Sidney Morgenbesser for the kinds of pages that are listed on vfd as "vanity."  This page was definitely not written by Sidney Morgenbesser, and it is completely verifiable, through the page of the school of the professor and the Februrary 2004 issue of Vanity Fair magazine. Anthony DiPierro 22:07, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Requests for mediation
Hello Jack. I just wanted to reassure you that your request for mediation with Lord Kenneth has not been forgotten. I have left another message for Lord Kenneth on his talk page asking for an answer to your request. If he declines to answer then I'm afraid we will have to take that as a no and mediation won't be possible. Regards -- sannse 15:30, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

ever-watchful
Unfortunately the picture is not "mine". Anyway, I see you caught my edit there. :) - snoyes 01:41, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

CBU
Jack, please don't remove complaints about yourself from, CBU. It might well be duplication, but that is up to someone else to sort out. It only looks like you are trying to hide things if you remove them. I suggest you point this out to whoever made the duplication and see if they had a reason for it. Angela. 03:04, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not trying to shame you. Tannin has done nothing to abuse his admin powers. Editing the CBU page has nothing to do with being an admin. The only thing you can not do is remove complaints about yourself. I'm not saying what he did was right, but I wasn't following the page at the time he made that change, whereas I did notice your change to it today. Please stop worrying about the page. As I've said to you before, a lot of people get listed there. It doesn't mean anything. Just leave a clean trail so it shows who really is the problem user and who isn't. If you go round making edits that are clearly wrong like removing yourself, you are the one who comes off looking bad. Please try to ignore the page for a while. Don't worry about what's said about you and don't feel the need to list other people there. Anyway, I know this advice is hard to take. It's not long ago I was listed there myself, so I do know it's upsetting, but just try to stay away from it. It's not worth the stress it causes. Angela. 03:27, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)

Please stop being so paranoid that there is some cabal out to get you. No one is trying to hide the fact that we don't have decent means for dealing with problems that are not simple vandalism. That's partly why the committees were formed so we have a means of dealing with this, but currently those are in the process of being set up, so please don't expect results overnight, and please don't start criticising my committee before we've even started mediating anything. Harrassment is not ignored. We have rules like No personal attacks and Remove personal attacks, so it's unfair to go round suggesting that people don't care about these things when quite clearly many people do. Angela. 04:02, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)

Popes
Hey Jack, if you include the Pope part in the link, the link will work. I saw that you linked a whole bunch of popes on various pages without the Pope bit. Adam Bishop 03:30, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Saints are a little harder to find, but with Popes it's easy, just include "Pope" in the link, and they will all work (unless you spelled something wrong). Adam Bishop 04:43, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

reverting
A revert war requires two factions to revert one another. It is advised on How to revert a page to an earlier version not to revert more than three times. You have done this on Atheism. Don't tell me what I should and should not edit. - snoyes 04:57, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Please archive your talk page, large pages are prohibitive and place an undue strain on the internet. What is all this fuss I have been hearing about? Lirath Q. Pynnor

ROFL Just don't let Jimbo know about any of this! I hear he grows soft and weak in his later years, even mumbling about "welcoming new editors" and "inclusionism".... ROFL


 * Do you really think its bad me having my talk page so long?
 * Yes, try to keep pages under 32k.


 * I hear about you alot.
 * I hear about myself a lot, apparently im some kind of unrepetant heretic.


 * The people I'm mad at do alot more flamming
 * Trolls are not allowed to flame, because they do it to stir up trouble. Sysops are allowed to flame all the time, because they are just people like the rest of us and can't be held to a standard of perfection.


 * I believe your on my AIM
 * AIM me sometime, I deleted all the wikipedia people from it the other day, since most of them are never on.

Lirath Q. Pynnor

yes, now archive your page. Lirath Q. Pynnor