User talk:Saxifrage/Archive 1


 * This is an archive from 22:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC). Leave new messages at my talk page.

The history of this archive begins at the beginning of the page history and ends at this diff.

Sollog and the Wikipedia Cult
You do not know yet whatit is like to find out that it was all a sham and to get out of the Wikipedia cult. It is not a joke. It is a shattering experience. Hence I strongly oppose placing the eye-opening article on BJAODN. Come to the support /information group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ex_Wikipedia_Support_Group/ TrollVandal 19:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment. All our operators are busy right now, but your comment is important to us. The estimated time for your commenting satisfaction is approximately  minutes. Please hold.    &mdash; Saxifrage (&#9742;)    23:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't feel bad... these prediction scams are so fricking boring and pointless, the dates and numbers tend to melt into a blur! Wyss 02:50, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I just jumped the gun and failed to check all the numbers, not just the ones I thought were interesting. My ego will survive&mdash;it'll just learn a bit of caution, is all. :)   &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 03:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Welcome to wiki! There's no real protocol for communicating with users. If the conversation is extended they usually agree to take it all to someone's talk page. Otherwise it's back and forth, like this, whatever works. Wyss 03:46, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Buffer Limit
Hmmm... thanks... I raised it from 6k to 12k, maybe that'll help. Wyss 04:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Constant Allegations
I absolutely deny making any anonymous edits deliberately, ever. I always try to log on, so I can keep track of what I'm doing. I am not an AOL user, I don't think AOL is available where I am and I can assure you I'm not dialling internationally to edit anything. I repeat I didn't edit any article including Evercat's talk page from any IP other than mine. Indeed I was very careful not to edit his user page and did not do so. I asked him to do so on his talk page several times. He did not do agree, I didn't think it was up to me to edit his page and did not. I will pursue arbitration on this matter eventually but I won't be editing his page just as I wouldn't expect him to edit mine. Ask Evercat what my IP is, he has posted it on WIkipedia and IRC repeatedly.

Your tone is more polite than your other left-wing friends. However it is in a pattern of constant allegation, constant personal attack by those self-identifying as leftists. I have been variously accused of being Chuck (who I've barely interacted with), Reithy (who I've never interacted with), and now five different IP numbers. If I didn't have a differing perspective to avowedly Marxist contributors to the Soviet Union article, would you be making these claims? I don't think so.

You may want to consider whether constantly accusing those with differing opinions of wrongdoing. It turns Wikipedia into a battleground not a place for producing a neutral encylopedia. Libertas

Confusion over anonymous edits
Look at the edit history of the now retired Evercat's talk page (something you might have considered doing BEFORE putting to me the allegation you did) and you will see I indeed deleted his personal attack from the talk page. He had accused me of trolling, as have many people associated with 172 and his views. Trolling seems to mean disagreeing with them. I believe troll is a seriously bad thing in the Wikipedia context.

I scrupulously avoided editing his user page for the reason that I think it was his decision and the community's about whether he should remove the hateful reference to my religion (not a personal attack btw) from his page. I messaged him on his talk page about that a few times as the edit history shows.

I will respond to the rest of your message when I have carefully considered it. But I certainly did not vandalize evercat's user page, if I'd wanted to do that presumably I wouldn't have bothered trying to persuade him to do the right thing.

Libertas


 * Responded on your Talk page. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 20:37, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Sax, you sound like a nice guy that says mean things nicely.

And that's fine.

But your own user page confirms your status as a socialist, a doctrine invented by Marx. Now that may not make you a Marxist but it explains your perspective.

I have Ronald Reagan on my user page so that explains mine!

Saying you have less extreme views than Ruy Lopez does not give me much comfort but you certainly have my encouragement to edit the articles neutrally, as we should all do.

I might check in and see if I can add something useful from a non Marxist, non socialist, non alternative lifestyle perspective.


 * Alternative lifestyle? There are many socio-economial teories, and you can adopt one, but no one is "alternative", just because no one is "official". -- 200.85.101.26

I take your point about the labels but 172 for example who does not self-identify as a leftist so very clearly is, he has been involved in more ideological wars than Rush Limbaugh. And in his case, I'm sorry, labels are essential in outing his narrow, ideological input which is utterly intellectually bankrupt (to the point of citing Reverend Moon's media outlets).

As to the anonymous edits, I have dealt with that previously but reiterate that your accusation, gentle prompting, warning, counsel or whatever is wrong. I didn't do it and will refrain from accusing anyone (yet) of doing it in an attempt to get me banned. It was not a subtle exercise and reminds me of one particular user. Libertas


 * Responded on your Talk page. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 20:36, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

This is hopefully my last edit before my vacation can start properly. :-) The edits to my page were done by an opportunistic vandal, who I think calls himself "The Avenger". It's the same guy as wrote this for instance. I find it highly unlikely that this person is also Libertas. Evercat 22:22, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Skin & Fare well
I note your comment in the edit summary. I need to grow a thick skin, you say. I have been accused of everything under the sun on that page and elsewhere, including withstanding a sustained campaign to get me blocked from those with a different political perspective to mine. To be frank, you'd squeal like a stuck pig if someone unleashed such a campaign on you so please keep your personal observations to yourself and we'll get on with improving the article. Libertas
 * Replied on your Talk page. Further posts here will be ignored and/or removed (as appropriate), as per my intentions stated in my reply. Also, don't bother removing discussion so far&mdash;I'll just revert. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 21:13, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

I attempted to diminish the tension, something I heartily encourage you to try. I suggest you consider taking your own advice. You can remove, not remove, whatever, I don't mind was just trying to help.Libertas

Replied on my talk page. &mdash;Charles P. (Mirv) 02:26, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Libertas RFC
I've just opened up a user conduct RFC regarding Libertas's personal attacks and other deliberately disruptive behavior. Your comments to him are invoked as evidence of other users trying to resolve the dispute, which makes you one of a handful of people able to certify the basis of the dispute. If you want to do that or have any other input, I'd very much appreciate it. If you have any concerns, please contact me. RadicalSubversiv E 03:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Red links
In your recent edit at European Union, you stated that it was inappropriate to link to an empty page. As far as I know, there is no policy against linking to non-existant articles. To the contrary, editors are encouraged to use wikilinks in appropriate places to show that there is not yet an article on that subject. Many articles are the result of someone seeing a red link and deciding to help expand Wikipedia. Do you think that the name "Status of the European Union" is itself inappropriate, or are you objecting to something else? &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 02:25, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Just after I submitted that edit I realized that I did not explain well what I wanted. Sorry for that.


 * Red links are of course very appropriate and very encouraged. I make them myself sometimes. However, in this particular context, I have doublts.


 * It looked to me that somebody just saw the sentence "The current and future status of the European Union is a subject of great political concern within some of the European Union member states" and carelessly said "Hey, let me linkify status of the European Union". I think that was careless because the status of the EU was described in that very paragraph where the link was, and because the author of that link did not bother to either write the article, or submit a request. Besides, I have serious doubts on whether a stand alone page on the status of EU is necessary.


 * In short, the link was not really necessary, so, if somebody bothered to put the link, that person should have done at least something meaninful about it, as request an article on the topic.


 * I don't know if I am making sense. Looking forward to your comments. You can write on this page, I have it on my watchlist. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov 02:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick answer. That makes more sense, yes. I would lean more toward leaving a red link as it is when in doubt, and I certainly don't expect everyone that makes red links to either request the article or write it themselves, but I do see the point in this case. The title "Status of the European Union" doesn't really make it obvious what the article should be about, for starters.
 * (The most recent example of a good red link I've found was the link to VanDusen Botanical Garden in List of botanical gardens. When I created the article from Vancouver, British Columbia, it was already linked from the list. I wouldn't have expected the original red-linker to write it or request it in that context.)
 * I think I need to tune down my watchlist vigilance a bit, as I think I overreacted. My apologies if I came off that way. I've been dealing with too many disruptive editors recently and it's taking its toll on my reserve of good faith. If nothing else comes from this exchange, I must as least thank you for being a sane editor. ;-) It restores my faith in the WP process. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 03:00, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * All was fine, relax :) And thanks for your message, I will pay more attention to what I write in edit summaries. Oleg Alexandrov 03:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Say it like it is!
Thank you so much for your comment, "nobody cares where you're located, so please shut the hell up about it", on Talk:Sollog. It really needed saying. Cheers, dbenbenn | talk 02:52, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it needed to be said but I was afraid it might be pushing the bounds of civility. Thanks for the feedback! Though I didn't think at first that this users was Ennis, doubts are creeping in on the behavioural evidence presented so far. The user shares Ennis' single-minded focus on a subject, and the same inability to process new information quickly. I'm still suspending judgement so far... but increasingly I'm finding that I don't care. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 04:00, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly. It isn't obvious whether this new Number person is Ennis (which says something in itself), but it just isn't worth bothering about anyway.  dbenbenn | talk 02:05, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for zapping! I was hoping someone else would pick up where I left off. I didn't want to just be unilateral, since that might look biased. dbenbenn | talk 05:52, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem&mdash;it needed it. I felt quite justified in making those edits once I really looked at how much useless noise there was. The ease of sorting the moderately on-topic talk from the junk (in such convenient blocks, too!) made it clear how much it was needed. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 05:55, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

The Number likes to be vitriolic
(This has been pulled out of the above comments, since The Number considerately posted it into the middle of an old conversation, completely ignorant of Talk page conventions which have been explained multiple times to him.)

Why should you worry about civility? They don't apply to others in your team so why should they apply to you? Personally the very fact that someone relentlessly called me a liar and, by calling me Ennis, by association, called me a pornographer and, this is the key point, no-one even tried to censure him in public is evidence how your little team works. I have dealt with this more on my own Talk Page - not that you're really interested as you have your own agenda. If you really did care about Wiki then as volunteers you'd conform to Wiki's rules. This means you treat contributors POLITELY and it also means that you have a Neutral Point of View.

What this means is that if people wish to post on Talk Sollog pages that they are indeed fans that you do not allow such posts to immediately be deleted against a background of baying that '''It's Ennis! Ennis! Ennis! Ennis posting through proxies!'''

That's just juvenile and, in the context of Wiki, is against Wiki policy.

The Number 01:01, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, why bother about someone who complains that he has not been treated fairly? After all, why bother to comply with Wiki code about treatment of contributors. Much more important things in life like appeasing (or at least not annoying) people who have openly said they are are just baiting a contributor. After all, why 'police' a page in a fair and even-handed manner? The Number 01:01, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Surely if you exhibitied bias that would be to your credit? If you bother to look through the archives on the Talk Sollog pages you'll see five people, all from the UK and all of them have been accused of being Ennis...up to the point where they just don't post anymore. One of them - Cardinal Chunder - even has his own anti-Ennis website but, no, that didn't convince people.

The Number 01:01, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now that's a different point. By all mean delete posst that are off the topic - which is about making the article better. Now, let's see, which posts did you delete? I wonder...did you delete the numerous posts screaming: "He's Ennis! he must be! He sits in Florida and phones up pubs in the UK to tell him what is in the pub!" Yes, I exaggerate to make the point - but not by much.

Also did you delete without comment or were you uncivil to any contributors?

One final point. Remember to delete all this and boast that you haven't read 'the spam Ennis screed'. It will give you more friends.

One more educative point. In the UK the word 'buffoon' is often seen as a friendly term.Ashley, who I referred to, is English.

Whereas, oddly, 'transparency', 'liar', 'pornographer' never are.

Funny, that.

The Number 01:01, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS

Yet again this crashed whilst posting so I was logged out and I forgot to log in before posting - apologies.

The Number 01:12, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I deleted only Talk that was about you, about your location, and the accusations of being Ennis. You have completely ignored on-topic Talk that other people post in response to your points. You make claims that you don't back up, and the evidence that you provide for the claims that you do back up is utterly useless. Further, as soon as you stopped posting with your "there's no point" whining, Ennis started posting with his usual style. He also stopped right before you showed up. You have managed to contribute a single link to the article in two weeks and pages of argument, and I have every reason to believe you are Ennis. You're not convincing anyone that you're honest. So, I have two words for you, Ennis: piss off. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 23:05, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * It's your page so I guess you can lie as much as you want. If you bother to look at the Talk Pages (i.e. if your minders let you do so with an open mind) you'll see that in fact I was insulted just a smuch if not more than Wyss and the others.


 * Also if you've ever had a conversation with a real person rather than through a computer you'll realise that when someone says something it is sensible to put comments after they have said it not wait until the end of all of them and then put comments that would then be difficult to relate back. If for example someone wanted to disagree with the points you have made they'd post between my points and yours but your blessed Wiki convention (which is a misinsterpretation anyway) would mean that the comments have to go at the end.


 * If it's an old conversation, no, it's not sensible. If you want to reply to a comment in an old conversation, it's much more polite to avoid disturbing the layout of the original conversation by answering below. If that means you have to write a bit more to say what you're responding to, or if you have to quote a line, that's fine. But, the way you have been doing it so far, along with your lack of understanding of the nuances of formatting, just makes it look like you're either trying to confuse the page and make it hard to read what was said before, or just lazy.
 * As for your dig about real conversations, I am immune to your insult, sir. :-) &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 23:54, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

It's OK though. I don't expect courtesy anymore or civility. It's been a learning curve for me - I started off optimistically looking for the best in editors. Now I know that was the unrealistic approach. Editors that fawn at others who ignore Wiki policies on respect for other contributor....As usual you accuse without any substantiation. If I had said to you: "You make claims that you don't back up" I'd have given an example. You didn't, of course.


 * Your claim that you are in the UK was not substantiated. Now, I don't care if you are there, so I don't really want to ask you for proof, but there are easy ways of proving it. Saying what is in a newspaper headline, or what was on TV at that minute, are not proof because we can't check them. Would you like me to tell you what kind of proof would be convincing? I'm game, even though I don't care where you are. If not, cool. Just be aware that the "proof" you offered was utterly useless. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 23:54, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Would you like me to tell you what kind of proof would be convincing? I'm game, even though I don't care where you are. YES. The Number 01:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * See below about the picture suggestion or your own postcard suggestion. Happy?
 * (By the way, try to leave only one blank line between different people's postings. If you put it two it looks funny and amateurish.) &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 02:19, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * You saying 'piss off' yet again shows a breaking of the Wiki policy which makes me ask - 'why are you here?' Is it some sort of cyber-bullying attempt? Oh yes you say how little I contribute. I have already listed 7 things I have contributed. You, on the other hand, ingratiating yourself with others, merely repeat the mantra: "You're Ennis! Piss off!" Now firstly that's against Wiki policy. Secondly it just makes you an idiot as I know for 100% certain I am not Ennis. -- The Number 23:32, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I said "piss off" and I should apologise. I was irritated with you, and I should have taken my own advice and ignored it. So, I'm sorry for saying that. I don't think calling you Ennis is an insult though, since I honestly believe it's factual. Calling me what you thought was my name wouldn't be an insult either. Anyway, it doesn't matter because I don't care who you are, just what you do here. So, I'll call you The Number from now on.
 * As for your contributions, no, you haven't made many at all. You've suggested seven thing for the Sollog article that were long ago rejected as useless by a consensus, except for the Guardian link. You gained some respect for that link, but quickly lost it with your belligerent attitude and your unreasonable responses to the suggestion you learn how to sign your posts. Make some useful edits, especially elsewhere than Sollog, and you will be able to say you've made good contributions. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 23:54, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Further conversation
Please note. I am being polite. You will never see posts from me telling others to 'Piss off' ...but then I haven't reached the exalted status you and your cabal think you have.


 * If you would like something more than an apology and an admission that, I too, am human and make mistakes, please tell me. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 01:13, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * I ask merely for two things. Consistency in the compliance with Wiki policy (which of course includes being polite to contributors AND jumping on people who openly bait others in a cyber-bullying way...but then, did he give you a Barnstar award?) and some common sense. The Number 01:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You get back what you give out, dude. You be civil, and people will be civil to you. Look, I'm being civil. What more do you want from me? (And, no, I haven't got any barnstars. Do you see any barnstars on my user page?) &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 01:53, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * You've lost all chance of barnstars by being civil, let me tell you... Americans are not that struck on civility as they call that 'prissy' The Number 02:03, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now, as it looks as though you read my posts instead of knee-jerkingly deleting them, perhaps we can have a dialogue. That is what these pages are about isn't it?

Let me tell you why you're wrong as part of a consensus to reject my contributions.

1. I contributed a link and an extract to a letter from Ionescu. In that letter he heavily criticised Sollog/Ennis's skills as a Nostradamus 'interpreter' but (in my view) complimented his predictive ability. 'Now, you may think that instead that's a criticism of Ennis - maybe it is BUT it is still a link to a third party that has actually MET Ennis and discussed things with him. It is also (at the time I introduced it) evidence that in some circles Sollog/Ennis was being considered as a Nostradamus analyst/expert''. Ionescu wouldn't waste his time in correspondence if he thought such correspondence was worthless'''.


 * In your view it complimented his predictive ability. Everyone else disagreed. That's consensus at work. Sorry, man, but things only stay in articles by consensus, and your view didn't have any of that. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 01:13, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have now emboldened part of what I wrote so you will perhaps read it properly :-))The Number 01:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, I've read it. People disagree with what you've put in bold, as I've already said. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 01:50, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * If you have read it you've missed the point - a point that no-one disagreed with. I have italicised it now The Number 02:03, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * So someone has met Ennis. So what? &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 02:09, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * No, not just 'someone'. A highly respected authority on Nostradamus who thought Sollog important/interesting enough to go and meet and correspond with. The Number 02:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I've read the link. The only thing it proves is that Mr. Ionescu was in correspondence with J. P. Essene/Sollog and had phone conversations with him, and that Ionescu thinks that he is even more ignorant of Nostradamus than a beginner. Since it doesn't say why he was corresponding, we would be remiss to state that Mr. Ionescu did so because he thought Sollog was important. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 02:28, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

2. I gave a link to a UK based group that was moderated. A useful resource if anyone wanted to read sensible discussions with Sollog BUT the posts are quite old.


 * The email list didn't prove anything worthy of inclusion in the article, if I remember right. What point would there be in linking to it? &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 01:13, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * It proved that people in the UK thought it worthy of discussion. That means that there has to be people in the UK interested which at the very least would give doubt to the claim that he had no fans. And...before you ask at least one of the people in the group has his own website with a UK addrses so must be in the UK! (But having said that, the group is 4 years with no posts...) The Number 01:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Which is not worth mentioning. The very existence of the article at Sollog is a statement that people have found him worthy of discussion. The UK mailing list adds nothing. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 01:52, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Who was the original writer? The Number 02:03, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't care, don't know (for certain), and it doesn't matter. The article passed a Vote for Deletion, and that's enough for it to be kept. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 02:10, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

3. I pointed out frequently, that everyone posting from the UK was automatically believed to be Ennis. That included Cardinal Chunder - and here is where I pointed to the stupidity of his accusers, their shallow thoughts - who has his own anti-Sollog site!!!!
 * Cchunder wasn't believed to be Ennis because he was posting from the UK, he was believed to be Ennis (by one person, Wyss) because of what he wrote. Notice that nobody else thought he was Ennis: consensus was that he was an honest editor.


 * Again I have emboldened my post to make sure you read it. Wyss should have been chastised for his posts because they went against Wiki policy towards contributors. In not chastising him you show bias.:-))


 * Other people have already chastised Wyss. I'm not Wyss' keeper. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 01:55, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah? So why is the ONLY entry on my own User Page 'sollog'...put there by Wyss? (And then removed - the guy's a loon) The Number 02:03, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Look, if you have a problem with Wyss, take it up with Wyss and file an RfC or a RfA. If you keep complaining about Wyss without doing something constructive about it, I will stop thinking you're reasonable and start ignoring you as a troll. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 02:07, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * As for the rest of them, I disagreed with the knee-jerk assumption that those other posters (and you, too) were Ennis. However, it still wasn't because they were from the UK that it was assumed they were Ennis (that doesn't even make sense), but it was because they had never edited anything except Sollog and Talk:Sollog and they were making edits that looked suspiciously like the edits that confirmed Sollog sockpuppet had already made. Still, I thought it was too quick to assume they were Ennis for that reason, and I still don't believe they were all Ennis. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 01:13, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * No, the point was their location 'proved' it was a proxy posting! The Number 01:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No it wasn't. Go back and read the archives. The person who pointed out that the poster was in the UK was the poster himself. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 01:59, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

4. I drew attention to the dangers of Sollog/Ennis by detailing how he forced someone - David Patrick - to stop criticising him and also how he/his minions faked emails and sent pornography round in the critic's name. I think that's important because it's a side of his character you lot may not be aware of. Useful to know in case any of you put personal details on your own pages.


 * So what? We can handle ourselves, and we already know that Ennis does dirty pool. It wasn't worthy of inclusion in the article and would have amounted to libel or slander if we had included it because we had no proof. (By the way, that too made people think you were Ennis, since he has tried to get slanderous/libellous material into the article before, which would get Wikipedia in a bit of trouble.) &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 01:13, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Right...so linking to posts already on the net and openly being friendly (I should have known better) to warn people is putting you at risk but calling me 'transparent' etc and continually calling me a liar is fine...I see. BTW from what I have seen legal action has already been taken against Wiki by Ennis (though I have my doubts...) The Number 01:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't put us at risk. We're certainly not going to make it a part of the article like you insisted, though. (Legal action hasn't been taken by Ennis.) &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 01:59, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Now those four points alone are sensible contributions.

Since then I have drawn attention to the hypocrisy of people like you and Wyss in acting as Hyenas, baying: "He's Ennis! he's Ennis! He's transparent" when I post and also the pointlessness of posting on the Sollog/Ennis page. This point you just proved by being unable to control your abuse towards me - you, with more experience than I, of Wiki and yet, seemingly you think their conventions do not apply to you. I call another English person a 'buffoon' which is not really rude and get banned; the prestigious little cabal members say : 'Piss off' to me and whoopee, that's fine.

(I'm not particularly bothered by your behaviour after all 'Number' is just an identity BUT it does show yet again how your little ruling group flout the conventions you impose on others.)


 * Did you miss the apology? I'm sorry, I shouldn't have stooped to that point. I apologise and offer the weak excuse that I'm only human. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 01:13, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

The point about 'we cannot check them' for the proof in the UK, thing is just another example as to how you seek to dupe people. Maybe too much association with certain other cyber-identities has made you think everyone’s stupid, maybe it was just a slip. Let me remind you. Ashley (says he) lives in Salisbury. Therefore he COULD have provided absolute proof but hey! that wouldn't be allowed because as I am in the UK I cannot be Ennis and that destroys your whole charade of having someone to bait (as Wyss put it - totally unremarked on BTW).

So your comment that the proof I offered was 'utterly useless' was, to use an Administrator's words (which he used to chastise me - again) unnecessarily provocative. It seems you cannot behave. OK what proof can I offer:


 * No, no, it's still useless. Any proof that is more trouble to check than what it would prove is worth is not worth bothering with. If you're serious about proving something, the onus is on you to do the work, not the people who you're trying to convince. Now, let's consider your options below. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 01:13, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * 'Still useless' is better than 'utterly' I suppose. Less rude. I see you're backing away again. You said:"Would you like me to tell you what kind of proof would be convincing? I'm game, even though I don't care where you are. If not, cool." OK then  -what proof? The Number 01:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I will assume that you read the stuff below and already found the answer to that. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 02:05, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

a. I could tell you what’s on TV; what the weather is like - but hey! from my satellite phone in Florida I could be phoning someone up asking them so I can dupe Wikis. (You really must have time on your hands if you think I'd do that!)


 * Not proof. If I can check if it's true (TV listings are available online, and many channels are webcast) then you could get the info without actually being in the UK. If we can't check if it's true, then you could be making it up. Either way, it's not proof. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 01:13, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

b. I could send a postcard to a UK contributor...but I don't know any addresses anyway, surely, I am simply getting my UK friends to do that.


 * Someone would have to be willing to give you their postal address. Nobody would be willing to do that because there's still a chance you are Ennis. None of us want to personally deal with the dirty pool that he pulls. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 01:13, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Why are you discounting my points - I have done htat. Plus, you're wrong. In England we have Post Offices (though not for much longer). A postcardcould be sent to a Post Office, say, Salisbury, for Ashley to collect. The Number 01:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm discounting them because your own discounting is mostly flawed. As for the post offices, I didn't know that. I suppose you could do that, then, if you really wanted to prove something. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 02:03, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

c. Ummmm...I could send a photo of me registered post to someone, and have me standing at a London underground. Oh no... I'd have paid someone to do that.


 * You could just post a photo online, you know. No need to send it to someone. But, just a picture of some guy in the London underground wouldn't be proof, since the picture could be taken from somebody's webpage. However, a picture would work if you made a sign that said something like "Hi Wikipedia, this is The Number" and took a picture of it in front of some identifiable part of the UK. You wouldn't even have to be in the picture (we don't want you to compromise your privacy any more than we want to compromise our own.) Yes, you could pay someone to do even that, but it would take a while and we'd get suspicious about the delay. Even if you did it quickly, I'm sure there would still be people who would claim that it wasn't "strong" enough proof, but it would convince a lot more people than you have convinced so far. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 01:13, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Are the methods by which one can post pictures on one's own page simple and easy to follow? The Number 01:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You did say you have a webpage. I don't need to explain it to you if you do. If you do need it explained, there are ample resources online to help you. Again, man, the onus is on you, not me, to prove this point that nobody cares about anyway. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 02:03, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

d. Ummmm, let’s see. Make a phone call? Nope, I'd be getting someone to do that for me.


 * Again, nobody's giving out their phone number. Doesn't matter if you could have someone else do it. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 01:13, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

e. Personally visit all the hospitals in Salisbury? (Where Ashley works - I'd find him eventually) Nope, because that wouldn't be me (supposedly Ennis) but instead someone I was paying.


 * I don't think Ashley would want you to do that anyway... that'd be too much like stalking. No, definitely don't do that. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 01:13, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

f. Quote from a newspaper that's not on the Internet, like a local newspaper? Nope, I’d be paying someone to do that.


 * Again, we wouldn't be able to verify that. Also, a lot of people would suspect that you had found a way to figure out what was in the paper anyway. Newspapers just aren't the best way of proving anything. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 01:13, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

g. Webcam? Dunno - maybe that's something that can be done through proxy?


 * Right. There'd be no way to be sure that it was coming from any specific place, let alone from the UK. Although, the same thing as with the picture could be done: if the video could only possibly have been shot in the UK, then we would have good reason to believe that you are in the UK. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 01:13, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

h. Show you my website? Nope - I'd be showing you someone else's and paying them to pretend I am them.


 * Even if you didn't show us someone else's, what would that prove? &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 01:13, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

See how stupid all this is? Also see how Wyss ducked my challenge - as you did too. You see I could prove who I was to Ashley as for £1,000 I could drive to him and in front of him log on here using Number password thus at least seriously minimising the chances that the person he meets is Ennis.


 * No kidding we rejected that. First, nobody is going to fork out a bunch of money unless they were already going to. Second, you could drive down to see Ashley even without the money. Third, I'm pretty sure Ashley wouldn't want to meet some stranger from the Internet, whether it was Ennis or someone else. So, it's not a very good offer, is it. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 01:13, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

(Please bear in mind there are no photos of Ennis - anywhere on the net)

I could send my passport that shows no visits ever to USA...but then it's undoubtedly a fake passport...


 * 1) that would require one of us to give you their address: nothing doing, my friend. 2) we wouldn't want you to send your passport in the mail because that would be a phenomenally stupid idea: do you know how much a British passport is worth on the black market? A whole lot, I'm pretty sure.


 * Now, keep in mind that we still don't really care where you live. You are the one insisting you are in the UK and are failing to offer evidence that anyone can accept. You could just stop saying you're in the UK, you know, and we would stop saying you haven't proved it. We don't care. We really don't. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 01:13, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ennis is in USA. (Actually I thought he was in the Cayman Islands) A photo of me in, say London, without my face, holding a poster could still be Ennis of course!!!!!!!


 * Well, sure, if you say so. You're the one so keen to prove something. If you don't want to prove anything, that's peachy-keen by me. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 02:05, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

I think if the 'nuances of formatting ' are my sin, compared to the blatant disregard of Wiki policy towards contributors (continually calling me Ennis and therefore saying I am lying) then I haven't much to worry about.


 * They're not a sin, they just make you look bad. You already seem to have difficulty learning the things that everyone else seems to be able to learn quickly, so we aren't confident that you can learn to be a good editor. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 01:13, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't bait people. I don't swear at people. I don't revert their posts without reading them. I don't boast about reversion. OI guess what I have to learn, is not that much as I start off from a good point. :-)) The Number 01:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's a hint: we've noticed that, once Ennis has found something to complain about he never forgets it, no matter how much people have apologised about it. You don't want to be thought of as Ennis, right? So, take the hint and don't act like him. Besides, if you can't take an apology you have no right to complain in the first place.  &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 02:14, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Please prove you're not Ennis - let's see how you do as at a guess you’re in USA.

I'm waiting....

The Number 00:24, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Like I said, we don't care if Ennis is an editor. So long as editors make good edits, we don't care who they are. I could be Ennis, sure, but nobody (except you) is accusing me of having an agenda or making bad edits. Further, I don't really need to prove that I'm not Ennis, since your thinking I am Ennis doesn't mean anything to me and doesn't impede my ability to contribute to Wikipedia. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 01:13, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, as witnessed, it certainly impedes my ability to contribute to Sollog/Ennis page. The Number 01:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * And that would be your problem, not mine. I keep telling you, dude, that if you've got something to prove it's your problem to prove it. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 02:14, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Funny how 'diligent' editors missed this
From the Sollog Article:

There is zero evidence of any actual "fan" of Sollog.

My response:#

Someone posted today saying they were a 'fan'.

Naturally their post was deleted.

The Number 17:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fans from UK post but then get deleted. What proof is required? The Number 03:41, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's three days ago - no-one answered. Why? Because you don't WANT proof because with the proof would come embarrassment at how stupid all you who think I am NOT in the UK or I am Ennis or he has no Fans, would look!

The Number 00:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Evidence posted on Wikipedia isn't evidence that we can link to in a citation. Of course it was ignored: Ennis has been impersonating fans since the article got changed from his original version. Now, proof from the outside world, proof that isn't available from known Sollog-controlled sources, that would be interesting enough for editors to consider. So far there has been none offered or found, thus "zero evidence" is correct.
 * Is that enough of an answer to "what proof is required", or do you think some other proof would be sufficient? &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 01:21, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * As I am not a Sollog Fan it's difficult to answer. The Number 01:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * That's not an answer, that's avoiding the question. I've said what the proof we editors require is. Do you disagree? &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 02:16, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it's still vague. A copy of his book(s) in print would help.'One the Truth' for example - in paperback form. Don't know what proof that someone was really a 'fan' would do - because they could just be winding you lot up! The Number 05:21, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Copies of books in print don't have anything to do with fans, so it wouldn't be proof of his having fans. However, a sales-figure for the number of books sold from an independent, verifiable source would say something about whether he has any fans.
 * As for fans "winding [us] lot up", they wouldn't be proof precisely because anything that happens on Wikipedia is not citable in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia's standards require independently-verifiable external sources to justify claims. There's no external evidence found so far for Sollog having any fans at all. Without that, it is justifiable to say there is zero evidence of Sollog having any fans. So, what is left of your complaint? &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 05:36, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * my treatment over the Superbowl prophecy will do for a start! The Number 13:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You seem to have difficulty staying focused, so I'll clarify the "complaint" which we are discussing in this thread. The complaint I'm referring to, and asking if there is anything left of its tattered shreds now that I've fully addressed it, is the one which you started this particular section on my talk page to complain about. It is this: you complain that we say there is zero evidence of fans of Sollog despite people saying on Wikipedia that they are fans of Sollog. Do you have anything to add to this subject, the one we're actually talking about, or can I consider your complaint to be fully and utterly devoid of validity since you have fully and utterly failed to substantiate it? &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 21:56, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * He, he. You're funny. This is what we know:


 * 1. A post/number of posts have appeared on Sollog pages from person/people claiming to be fans. 2. These posts were eleted i.e. as I have pointed out before, the evidence was removed. 3. The evidence was not proven i.e. did not meet Wiki standards therefore it was not substantiated 4. This does not make the claim 'utterly devoid of validity'. 5. To explain. You could say, for example, that there is zero evidence that I am in the UK. The reason being that despite my claims, I have not substantiated it. This does not make it devoid of validity. It merely makes it unacceptable to Wiki. 6. I personally know two people who are 'fans' of Sollog. They don't believe everything he says but they do support him in the sense they buy his e-books, post to his Forum etc. Now, they do not post here to Wiki A.F.A.I.K. But their claim to be fans is valid - simply not acceptable.7. Therefore there WASA evidence but the evidence was not acceptable to you. If I said to one of these two I know, 'Go and post on Wiki' then to me, as I know them, that would be public evidence - but not, I accept to you. 8. Indeed if I said openly and repeatedly I was a Fan of Sollog (which I am not) that, based on your analyssi above, would not disprove your 'zero fans' stance because my protestations would be invalid. 9. Maybe I should get one of the people to hold a poster saying 'I support Sollog and not Wyss' and then copy that in...but, then again...can I be bothered? Also, if I were one of your mob, I'd just think: "That's Number taking the piss!" (but I would think so in a polite way) The Number 00:03, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You haven't the slightest clue what "validity" means, I see. If the claim that Sollog has fans is unsubstantiated, then it is automatically an invalid claim. Note that the fact of the matter isn't invalid (facts can't be invalid, but you would know that if you'd ever learned critical thinking skills), only the claim is invalid. So, "what we know" is only that people are claiming to be fans of Sollog on Wikipedia, and there is no evidence of fans of Sollog in the real world, external to Wikipedia. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 04:49, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

An obvious puppet weighs in
(This account was created briefly after The Number stopped responding for a lengthy time, has not contributed for more than a day, and knew exactly where to find an lengthy debate to give his little gem of information despite my not having said much of anything at Talk:Sollog for ages. Thus, it is an obvious sockpuppet of The Number.)

I am a Sollogfan but I don't expect you to believe me as you haven't believed anyone else Sollogfan 13:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't believed anyone else because the only evidence being presented is here on Wikipedia. External sources, Mr Sockpuppet, show us external sources. What's that? You can't show us any? Well then, case closed. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 20:07, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Still talking to those voices in your head? Or is this just another Wiki soliliquoy? I know I am a Sollog fan. That puts me ahead of you - knowledge is power etc. What external sources would you require? Oh yes, for you I assume God does not exist. Sollogfan 11:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Forget it. They think I am you and you am I. It fits their mindset. You'll get nothing here except stupidity. The Number 17:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Lovely, yet another passive-agressive personal attack. You're such a skilled conversationalist and debater! I'm going to miss you. :-) &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 22:09, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * You see direction where there is none; you see motion where there is none. I guess you want to. Your choice, I suppose. I was merely making an observation - unwise, I agree as I later learned that even calling someone 'naive' was a banning offence. Interestingly I see on sollogfan's page someone has posted that I an he are probably the same. So the jests continue. Me? I just lost interest. I did post again today after some gap, when I noticed Gamaliel was being accused of being abusive. I did advise the complainant that he would be happier to accept the inherent falsehoods and duplicity here and be able to move on. Sadly, he will probably not see my comments as they were immediately deleted. Not to delete them would, of course, have disproved them. Should you still feel the need for a challenge (perhaps you are young) then kindly choose another topic somewhere away from Sollog. It's all become rather tedious - I notice that Editors are now posting observations/extracts from Sollog that I myself made weeks and weeks ago (only for them to be deleted). My how they sit around and pat each other on the back for their insightful comments! The Number 18:57, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * If you don't understand the meaning of the term "passive-aggressive", I can understand how you'd think I'm seeing things that aren't there; however, your remark to "sollogfan" is an exemplar case of passive-aggressive behaviour. You're not tired of this debate, because you keep coming back here to talk about it, that's obvious. As for your beef with Gamaliel, I refer you to my comment about your beef with Wyss: don't come whining to me if you're not willing to open a formal complaint. As for my need for a challenge, your advice is wholly unnecessary&mdash;I've been a productive contributor to non-Sollog pages since shortly after creating my account. It's also wholly ironic, as you yourself have made a grand total of zero contributions to any article at Wikipedia. Physician, heal thyself. As for your beef about what people are doing over at Sollog, does this look like Talk:Sollog to you, or are you just whining again?
 * If all those points of non-communicative noise were removed from your comment, there would be nothing left of your comment. Knocking down your weak rhetoric is like shooting fish in a barrel. Come on, I'm sure you can do better than fallacy, indirection, and whining. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 01:30, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have deleted your abusive comment from my TalkPage. I note, in passing, that you have shown unwillingness to debate anything non-Sollog and instead prefer to post yet more derogatory remarks about me, on your Talk Page. It is not for nothing that few people use their real name when starting accounts. I also note that you have decided to continue the Wyss-inspired belief system whereby I am clearly Sollogfan, Sollog and/or Ennis etc etc. It fits your needs, so I'll let it stand unchallenged. A shame you cannot discuss or debate without use of such basic strategies. The Number 07:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * If you think it's abusive, it's your prerogative to remove it from your Talk page. However, my message remains: don't whine here unless you're recruiting me to do something about it. Saying that you are whining and using rhetoric (i.e. poor arguments) isn't abusive, because it's true and relevant to the discussion.
 * I don't care if you are Sollog, as I've already said above (which you continue to ignore). However, Sollogfan is very obviously a sockpuppet of yours, since you were so clumsy as to write Sollogfan into our discussion out-of-the-blue with a clear familiarity with the debate here and elsewhere. What I do care about is that you are a completely useless contributor, having made strictly zero contributions to any article on Wikipedia. I am debating Sollog here because it amuses me to toy with someone who is so utterly under-equipped in logic and reason skills that they use every sophistry ever invented. (That would be you, to make it clear.) Elsewhere, I have debated other things. The only reason this debate has gone on for so long is because you have shown yourself to be: a) incapable of making a reasonable argument that can convince your interlocutor (me), and b) incapable of accepting rational arguments, and c) when you can't avoid (a) or (b) you go off on a tangent or conveniently remain silent.
 * I've "won" the arguments on this page several times (either by decisive argument or by default when you've quit), and yet you persist. Observing obstinancy like this in a venue where the obstinant one (you) has no power to cause real trouble is entertainment the likes of which you can't imagine. As a bonus, if you ever do accept an argument I make as being sound, I will applaud your growth as a member of the human species.
 * Besides which, rational argument, logic, dialectic, and the analysis of rhetoric are important parts of my profession of choice, and one so sophist as yourself makes for an excellent practice partner. You would only be a better practice partner if you would come up with good arguments that I could concede on rational principles, which you seem to refuse or be unable to do. (Contrary to popular opinion, conceding good arguments is a skill that takes a lot of practice to do well. I notice you haven't much skill there). Regardless, I have met only a few sophists of your calibre, and the opportunity is much appreciated. You, Sir, have done me an immesurable favour by being so rhetorical and irrational. So, in sum, arguing with you is a win-win situation for me. When I said that I would miss you when you stopped posting, I truly meant it. :-)
 * Cheers! &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 21:20, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * What a long post/series of posts to make one little point - one that I fully agree with. That point being that it's perfectly OK for some to insult others but woe betide them if they behave even half as rudely to someone else. Something isn't abusive 'if it's true and relevant'....My how I laughed at that. Mind you I was slightly predisposed towards laughter having just read that I was banned for calling the actions of someone 'crassly stupid' as that was clearly not acceptable. Ho ho ho. I laugh again as I thumb through your accusations of calling me a liar, a sophist, having poor/weak arguments etc etc. Day after day some Wikis indicate what I have been saying for several weeks now that and in fact others agree with when they write: "Yes, I've quickly become familiar of the wildly inconsistent, subjective approach some editors here seem to use as their modus operandi. Evidently some people believe that voicing a divergent opinion to their own constitutes a "personal attack", but their own outright abuse of others is perfectly acceptable. Weird.--Centauri 23:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)" Your post fully justifies any attack I ever want to make on the ignorance shown here - but don't worry, I won't as, even if it's true and all the abuse is totally justified it's still bannable because, as I keep saying, 'One rule for some....' The irony is that you actually support such a situation which totally undermines all you write above (note the value free comment) on both an intellectual and emotional level. I'll continue to pop in as I wish, not to sneer like some of your colleagues but to laugh (though I suspect even if you have convinced yourself to laugh, we will not be laiughing at the same thing) Cheers! The Number 21:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Saying that someone is "crassly stupid" isn't relevant to the argument, so it fails the test of being "true and relevant". When I say that you are "whining", that is a relevant label for your behaviour, because whining should be redirected toward a RfC or RfA with the user you are whining about. However, "crass stupidity" isn't a useful label, because there is no policy that dictates that people engaging in stupidity should do something else instead. Similarly, pointing out that you have been using only sophistry, rhetoric, and ad-hominem arguments is relevant, because validly pointing such out is a valid denial of the argument in question. In other words, if you can't say anything without resorting to invalid and unsound arguments, you have nothing to say. My showing this fact is highly relevant to this entire series of debates. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 22:20, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * 'Crass stupidity' or 'being crassly stupid' is central to the posts. I thought this: "validly pointing such out is a valid denial of the argument in question." was especially funny, so near to the word 'sophistry' too! I see you seem to have failed to read the rest of my post so I'll give you time to gain coherence. Now I really must go - it's late here in the UK. The Number 00:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Pointing out that an opponent uses sophistry and its ilk is a valid means of dispelling their argument: it is essentially saying there is no argument, and why. I see that you have a very infirm grasp of critical thinking and logic. That's okay, just don't try to sound like you know what you're talking about.
 * "Crass stupidity" is irrelevant to the posts, because it's a subjective assessment. Identifying sophistry (which is a structural characteristic and so is objective), is relevant. Your comparison fails.
 * I neglected to address the rest of your post because it's just noise. Yes, there are editors who are inconsistent, but your inference that all editors are inconsistent at Wikipedia, and that I am one of them, is more bad logic. You're outclassed, man. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 20:05, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * More (unintentional, I am sure) mirth. You seek to preach about 'subjective assessment' and yet claim that my post, which you barely read and certainly don't umnderstand or you'd have commented on NEF, 'shows you don't know what you're on about'. Maybe it's coincidence or perhaps I am lucky. But this faux pas where you comment about 'inconsistency' when your previous post contradicts the logic behind your more recent post is, well, not side-splitting, but funny nonetheless. As too, was your misinterpretation or irony, believing instead that I believed my point countered yours. Outclassed - we're not even in the same league, man The Number 00:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * (Dialogue continued to left since this is getting too indented).

First, demonstrate how I am contradicting myself (rather than simply make an unsupported claim) and I will cede that I made a faux pas. Second, whether I commented on certain aspects of your previous posts or not doesn't indicate that I read and understood or didn't read and not understand, so your syllogism that concludes "I don't know what I'm on about" is invalid. And which "point" is this that you made that you say didn't counter mine, that you claim I "mistook" for countering it?

You're getting more and more abbreviated and unclear in your claims. I would hate for anyone reading this to think that you are deliberately making your arguments unclear and ambiguous, so please make your claims clearly and succinctly. Your mirth seems to be getting in the way of your ability to express yourself plainly. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 00:38, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Polyamory
'Denomination' isn't limited to Protestantism, although it might be most commonly used in that context. AHD defines it as: "A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy". Googling shows that censuses often explicitly acknowledge Catholicism as a 'denomination' and implicitly acknowledge non-Christian faiths (in that "what is your denomination?" is frequently the only religious question, but non-Christian faiths are routinely reported in the results). Couple of examples http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=984 here] and here.

It is sometimes seen as a Christian term (the 2001 .au census asked instead about "religious affiliation" for this reason), but it was the best word I could find.

The reason for the change was that somebody complained (off-Wikipedia) that "it's not the religions that ban polygamy, it's the churches", or words to that effect, and he had a point: this is more a matter of the churches' positions than prohibitions in the relevant original scriptures. But "churches" seemed more specifically-Christian than "denominations", so I picked the latter as the best of a bad lot. Suggestions for improvement most welcome. --Calair 04:13, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The European Union map
Hi Saxifrage! I'm glad you like the new graphic, as I'm currently in the process of creating maps for Europe: I have also made one for EUROPOL and for the regions of Europe (Central Europe, Eastern Europe, Northern Europe and Southern Europe). For the map, I used the avg. GDP PPP figure of $24,817, which is actually the correct figure. Where did $23,905 come from? I know it's been there longer, but I don't know where it came from. I think the $24,817 was achieved by dividing the EU's GDP, which was taken from the IMF site, by the population according to CIA World Factbook, EU entry. Even that population seems to be high, so I think the EU average GDP should probably be even higher. Mind you, the average GDP per capita figures are always inaccurate, as accurate as they look, because of the problem of counting the EU's population (and any country's population, for that matter). By the way, I will soon be adding a new column in the table (the Standard of living table) to show the GDP per capita of each country when EU=100 (basically, what the map shows in text form). It used to be there but at about mid-2004 it got taken out by a user and hasn't been back since. I think it's useful to compare individual state GDPs with the EU average. Cheers, Ronline 09:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * If the $23,905 figure is a simple average of all the national GDPs per capita (the 25), then it is inaccurate. This is because, for it to be accurate, or rather, statistically meaningful, it has to be a weighted average. Germany, with a population of 82 million, has a lot more relative weight than Luxembourg with 0.6 million. Therefore, you can't count the two GDPs as equal. So, what we should do is find out the total GDP of the EU (which we know), and then the population of each country and get the average like that. In any case, I think that the $24,817 figure is better because a lot of the new EU members, which are poorer, are also smaller, and, by averaging them simply, they have more relative weight than they should. Ronline 04:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * What I meant is that it is incorrect to give a simple average (mean) of per-capita GDP of the European Union by averaging each IMF GDP per capita figure for each member state. I wasn't saying that the actual GDP per capita figures are wrong - the GDP of Estonia, for example, is correct. But, Estonia has far less relative weight in the Union than Germany, for example. Therefore, they shouldn't have equal weighting when being average. By simply adding up all the GDPs per capita and then dividing them by 25 (the number of states), you assign equal weight to each. What we should be doing is assigning weight to each - Germany, because it has more people, should have more weight in terms of GDP per capita - its standard of living, if you like, has more statistical importance. I'll illustrate this with a simplified model - let's say that there are three countries X, Y and Z. Together, they form bloc XYZ. We're trying to find the GDP per capita of bloc XYZ. The population and GDP per capita figures of the countries are as follows:


 * X - 10 million people - $20,000
 * Y - 1 million people - $130,000 (ok, this is just an example :) )
 * Z - 1 million people - $4,000


 * If we were to average them simply, as I think is the case with the EU table, we would achieve a mean of $51,333. However, this figure is misleading, because the average GDP per capita of the XYZ would not realistically be this figure. Therefore, we have to weigh each GDP per capita figure in the following way, by using total GDP. The total GDP (population x GDP per capita) =


 * X - 200 billion
 * Y - 130 billion
 * Z - 4 billion
 * XYZ - 334 billion


 * So, the total GDP of the Union XYZ is 334 billion. The total population, from above, is 12 million. Therefore, for a population of 12 million people, the total product is 334 billion. 334 billion div by 12 million = $27,833.


 * The difference between $51,333 and $27,833 is large, in this example. In the real EU it isn't as large, because there isn't as much inequality as in the above exaggerated example. I'm just trying to show that the figure of $51,333 isn't real, in that we can't say that, on average, each citizen of union XYZ would produce to the value of $51,333 per year. The mean is distorted by the high GDP figure of Country Y. However, because X is by far the largest, the average GDP per capita is, in reality, close to X, sitting at $27,833. Now, to go back to the EU - if $23,905 were a weighted figure, it would mean that the population of the Union - calculated by Total GDP div by Mean GDP per capita would be 473,687,346. The economy, however, does not contain as many people, therefore GDP per capita should be higher. The problem, though, is we don't know what figure the IMF used to determine GDPs per capita. I think they have their stats on their site. I shall look around... :) Cheers, Ronline 07:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't feel silly! Truth is that with statistics, especially in economics, many people get confused between mean GDP per capita and weighted GDP per capita. In fact, both figures can be useful, as can the median (in fact, the median is the most useful, because in is less distorted by unequal income distribution). Concerning the $24,817, I will change it for the time being, but I will also look into the matter more to see what stats the IMF used, just to we can be accurate up to the last dollar. Concerning the map, it was a pleasure to do, and I will do some more on this issue, seeing as the European Union is a subject of infinite wonders :) Ronline 11:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Members of the 38th Canadian Parliament and Same-Sex Marriage
Sax, you've obviously put a lot of work into changing the light red to a dark red, but it doesn't make the page better. I hope that you will change it back. Much of the text in the table, i.e., the names of MPs and of their ridings, is linked to pages that don't exist, and appears, therefore, in red. Red text against a dark red background is very hard to read, especially for us old folks. The point of tables on wikipedia is to convey information, not make art. There was a clear and evident difference between the Yeas and the Nays before your change, and it was considerably easier to read the text. Please consider my request. Kevintoronto 17:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Sax, that's much better. The only problem I have now is that there is too much of the orangey-pink colour. I'd rather see more of the green, but I realize you probably don't have much control over that. Thanks for being so co-operative on this. Regards, Kevintoronto 04:28, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ParkingStones
Thanks for the heads-up on the whole image thing. (Are you "beginning" on livejournal?) So I asked to see if anybody interested in the micro-radio movement wanted to help write articles and I got a guy who knows nothing about it and doesn't think it's wiki-worthy writing my article for me and bites my leg off for leaving it as a sub-stub (I swear I was gonna write it). This of course is on my second day. So, I being a smart-ass (probably just as bad) created that. Congrats on the Harmonious Editing Club. :) Forgot to sign ParkingStones 23:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez
I've notified the Committee. Thanks.

James F. (talk) 11:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vancouver
here is the source: http://www.portvancouver.com/media/port_facts.html

next time i will refer to it in edit comment, thank you for reminding me

also, total foreign exports in North America and total cargo volume are different statistics, but incidentally you are correct, the Port of Vancouver is 1st in North America in total foreign exports and also 1st in total cargo volume on the West Coast.

user_talk:peregrineAY

Same-sex marriage in Canada
I removed the redlink because it is very unlikely there will ever be an article on that org, since it's not notable and only exists for one purpose. No sense in having a red link. --Spinboy 00:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arrogant Worms
Did the Worms release "Semi-Conducted" in both CD and DVD formats? I have a copy myself, and it's very much a CD.

My word
I said 'bye' and I meant it. I haven't 'returned' (i.e. under another ID) as yet. Check whatever you have to check and you'll see I am not Sollogfan. If you actually look at the 'corrections' to spelling it was not just my misspelling that was corrected. I - honestly - suggest you waste no time on this. I am posting now ONLy cos it's got silly. The Number 21:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The very fact you're posting gives you the lie. Either 1) you have been logging in to check on things and so you lie that you've left, or 2) you saw what I wrote under your Sollogfan account and decided to try to make it look like you're two different people. Either way, you're being deceitful. And since I already know that you're Sollogfan by your failed attempt at sockpuppeting, I know that (2) is the most likely case. Anyway, the truth will come out in an RfAr, so why are you worrying if you're telling the truth? If I'm wrong, nothing I say can hurt you. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 21:35, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * I was not logging in to check things. I was looking for stuff on 'Ethics' and thought 'As I am here I'll have a look at Sollog etc etc' and THEN I saw that even in my absence people are seeing one thing (or is this another 'mistake'?) and making wrong deductions. Ignoring the change to 'wich' for example. Anyway...moving on. Please clarify something. You say the 'truth will come out in an RfAr'. As I am telling the truth, according to you, I have nothing to worry about. Surely, 'truth' is not important but 'believability' is. For example. If Sollogfan is banned - I couldn't care less. If The Number or this IP or Sollogfan or Sollogfan's IP is banned from contributing to Sollog-related pages, I couldn't care less. If Sollogfan's IP is banned,period, I couldn't care less. If The Number is banned, I couldn't care less BUT if The Number IP number is banned from contributing elsewhere i.e. whole of Wikipedia, then I care as it prevents an ID change! The Number 21:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The spelling corrections of "wich" was done to text submitted by an anon who writes the same way as you and Sollogfan. That wasn't a mistake, that was deliberately pointing out that you "three" are all the same.
 * You go too far out of your way to assert that your and Sollogfan's IP's are different. I think you do protest too much. You do know that Developers can see your IP address, don't you? As I said, if I'm wrong, nothing I can say can hurt you, because avoiding relying on believability is exactly the point of getting a Developer to check on you during an RfAr. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 07:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

User:The Number, User:Sollogfan RfAr
Hi Saxifrage, I've filed an arbitration request against The Number and Sollogfan. Please consider if you want to add yourself as a plaintiff. Cheers, --MarkSweep 09:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)