User talk:Ssbohio/Archive 20070630

Ages of consent in North America
Hi you recently reverted a few items I moved from the article at Ages of consent in North America to its talk page. Did you read my reason for doing this? From the talk page...


 * I've been trying to keep up with the maintenance of this page but I'd like others to help. The problem is that editors keep adding sections in dot point form where they should be written in encyclopedic prose as per WP:MoS. With the bad examples still in the artice, more editors keep adding to the problem.

This has been a recuring problem on this article for a while now, I intend to continue to perform most of these updates myself, however as I stated, leaving the "bad examples" on the page means that editors continue to add new sections in dot points and without references. I've almost caught up, as I've been verifying and converting similar problems in all the AoC pages;
 * Age of consent
 * Ages of consent in Africa
 * Ages of consent in Asia
 * Ages of consent in Australia and Oceania
 * Ages of consent in Europe
 * Ages of consent in North America
 * Ages of consent in South America

For example your edit of a few weeks ago for Ohio, isn't in prose and does not cite the appropriate legislation. We could just copy and paste all the information from ageofconsent.com with no referneces to the law. This was the condition of these articles near the start of 2006. But, ageofconsent.com is not a reliable source and contains many errors.

I'm not going to bother reverting your revert, I'll just plug on from here. Just wanted to point out that you could have sent me a message first before making a fly-by revision. - Take my comments with a grain of salt you annnoyed me somewhat ;) --Monotonehell 05:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please consider the comments I made on the article's talk page, as they seem to address some of your concerns. I reverted the deletion  of content because the removal was not supported by WP:MoS as cited.  Please see Requests for arbitration/Jguk for ArbCom's opinion that the style guide is not policy and that "the prescriptions of Wikipedia's manual of style are not binding" on editors.  The MoS prefers prose, but it doesn't mandate it, and, even if it did, the MoS is not policy.  In my view, removing the contributions of others based on stylistic differences would set a dangerous precedent, one that ArbCom has come out against.


 * I reverted your deletions after due and careful considerations, yet I assume the assumption of good faith on your part when you describe my reversion as a "fly-by revision." Your rationale on the article's talk page did not mention removing content because of reference problems, only because it was in "dot-point format."  If you have an issue with my references (or anyone else's), there are established methods of tagging sections that are unreferenced or where references are disputed.  I want to see the article improved.  The place where we differ is on the use of deletion to improve the article.  --Ssbohio 05:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a vast difference between deletion and moving sections to the talk page for discussion, which is established practice on Wikipedia. Yes MoS is a guideline and not binding, however that ruleing was refering to a matter of the BC/BCE verses the AD/BC era but also states "...but be consistent within an article." The style and standards for referencing of all the Age of consent pages was decided by consensus early 2005 and is mentioned in the orange guides on the top of all the talk pages. My efforts are to bring all the pages into the one consistent style. My reason for moving those sections to the talk page was to try to stop new sections being added in the lazy style while we get the remaining ones up to agreed standard. What I meant by "fly-by" was that you performed a revision in good faith but without all the facts. --Monotonehell 10:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take your points in turn, to keep things organized. I invite you to reply point-by-point, or to reply en masse, as you see fit:


 * While pasting the entries to the talk page is vastly better than simply deleting them, from the point of view of someone consulting the article, the material had been deleted. If the material was not ruled out by policy, my view is that it should have remained in the article pending replacement with improved edits.
 * I stated my reasons above for temporarily withdrawing the selected content. Monkey see money do. This is a case of your view verses my actions and I've already agreed to disagree by not reverting your revert. --Monotonehell 04:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The principle in the ArbCom ruling that I'm driven by is that "when either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." If changing from one allowed style to another is unacceptable, then deleting the content is likewise unacceptable.
 * The substantial reason for change was the consensus on the talk page of talk:Age of consent of how to clean up the (then) problimatic and often incorect list of ages. Wikipedia is driven by consensus over rules and guidelines. The consensus was to a) separate out the legal content from the Age of consent article into separate subpages as I've listed above (as there is a great volume of it). b)Delete all unsourced and verified information completely. c)Start a programme of sourceing actual legislation to back up any claims, and writing quality prose discussions of each d) State the accepted level of verification on each talk page (in the orange boxes) and e) Continue to improve and hold to this level of quality. - This is convieniently in line with Jimbo's subsequent comments of last year that Wikipedia should be striving for quality over quantity. Placing more emphasis on verified information and better written articles. --Monotonehell 04:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that one consistent style is the best way to go. However, there is a difference between adopting a preferred style for the article and applying that preferred style as de facto policy and deleting non-compliant content.  I'm also not sure about the orange boxes at the top of the talk pages, since they list the elements in bullet-point format.  My first look at them left me with the impression that bullet-point was the desired style.  It's possible that the text of the box could be strengthened and clarified in that regard.
 * Again, there's a difference between deletion and redaction. There is no de facto style the style is that suggested by the MoS and the consensus arrived at. If you agree that one consistent style is the way to go, why not follow that which consensus has given (ie the MoS).
 * LOL I see the irony of listing instructions calling for prose in dot points. Not many contributors will look at the talk page before adding their bit anyway. This is why I'm keen to redact any existing sections that are not in the prefered style. Having them there is setting an example. --Monotonehell 04:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your point regarding maintaining a uniform style on these pages. However, I still believe that content should not be removed for stylistic reasons. , , or  tag where needed, but maintain maximum content within the article.  There are suitable warnings for style problems that should direct new contributors away from making the same mistakes.
 * Maximum content is contra to Wikipedia's current drive for quality over quantity. As I've stated above, the consensus was to delete any unverified information. Any information added since then is fair game for removal if not properly verified. In practice we haven't been so draconian, placing a call and attempting to find legislation to cite has been the norm. --Monotonehell 04:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For me, the bottom line is that removal of content should be a last resort only applied when no other correction can be made, or where the punitive effects of leaving the content as is outweigh the probative value of the content, like copyright issues or content issues in biographies. I have no problem with the motives behind these deletions, but as long as the content can be improved, I feel that that's the route to take.  As long as the content satisfies the reader's desire to know, improvement of its style shouldn't involve removing that content from the reader's grasp.  --Ssbohio 17:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Again you speak as if my actions were deletion PERIOD. My actions are a means to an end to improve these articles. Your, on one hand, stickling for the rules, and on the other, citing an arbcom ruling that basically says WP:IAR and simultaneously ignoring the consensus that has been built regarding this article is perplexing. --Monotonehell 04:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that neither of us are right or wrong, we both agree on where the article is best served, but we just disagree on how to get there. My actions were driven by observation and I came up with a solution to attempt to curb further low quality additions. Did I WP:IAR? Possibly. Was it a WP:AGF edit? Definatly. Was your revert also in good faith? For sure. So shutup and lets have a beer. ;) --Monotonehell 04:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I must warn you. If you start drinking with me, people will start to talk.  :-)  Seriously, though, my questioning wasn't with the intent that there was objective wrong in what you did.  To the contrary, there are a few editors & admins on the project who take a much more deletionist view than I do.  Outside of that major viewpoint difference, I largely agree with their (and your) approach.  Because of that, I want to understand the pro-deletion perspective better.  Honestly, if I thought the people making the deletions were not acting in good faith, I wouldn't care to know their philosophy.  In this case, I initially investigated based on either watchlist or RC patrolling.  I understood what you were doing, but I disagreed, so I reverted.  I consider that part of it to be ancient history.  I'm trying to take away from this discussion a better understanding of the pro-deletion perspective, and I thank you for providing it to me.  Now, just stop by tomorrow night and we'll go down to the pub.  They've got a wonderful hard cider there, among other things.  :-) --Ssbohio 06:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think I can be grouped with any -ist groups. In the case of AoC it was decided that deleteing and starting again was the easiest thing to do as none of the items were sourced or verified, and had been the subject of years of unchecked vandalism. This was how it looked back then. As you can see almost none of the info was backed up with legal citations and most of it was lifted straight from ageofconsent.com which is badly out of date. Sometimes I advocate deletetion, other times a merge and other times just improvement. I decide case by case. In the back of my mind are the questions "How can this be presented better? Does this make sense to a casual reader? Is this centric to one particular bias?" That kind of thing. I don't think any one ism can cover every situation and as such I don't tend to align myself with one school of thought. I think if you try to conduct yourself by one set of rules you're doomed to failier through inflexibility. Although I guess I'm an adherant to reason and forethought.
 * "Hard cider" hey? You must be American. We Australians don't make the distinction. Which can lead to confusion. XD I must admit to respecting our English cousins and their Scrumpy quite refreshing, and other effects. --Monotonehell 08:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, in America, you have to specify hard cider to avoid getting the kids' stuff. In the civilized world, cider is cider.  When I went to the Soviet Union in 1990 on a student exchange trip, our collection of 16 & 17 year-olds were inadvertently given hard cider when visiting a monastery.  Our chaperones looked absolutely stricken when they discovered that the alcohol had been lost in translation.  A good time was had by all.  --Ssbohio 08:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

ahem ;) --Monotonehell 13:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Bears season stubs
Thanks for the tip and I will use the correct stub template, and I will place it at the bottom. Thanks once again. --Happyman22 03:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to the Bean queen Rice queen AfDs
Friend, These edits and summaries might be construed to incivility. Forgive me if I am mis-interpreting. The strikethrough text is a little confusing to the discussion. Regards, Navou   talk  06:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing your concern to me. Let me run this by you, since I find these noms particularly upsetting as borderline abuses of process.  Please let me know if your civility concerns are addressed, or what else would need to be done:


 * Speedy Keep Copy & paste nom. The concept of a "bean queen" is more than the definition of the term, so WP:WINAD doesn't apply.  Notability is established and neologism is denied by its commonplace usage within media and popular culture (~20,000 Google hits).  Verifiability is no reason to delete the article, and the prevalence of the concept outside the article denies allegations of original research.  None of this information was difficult to come by, and the lack of due diligence in making this nomination concerns me.  --Ssbohio 06:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me... You would still remain civil to me if you were to add/amend "Are you making a Point?" I reckon for me, its all about minor subtlety and tact.  Its hard to read someones intent.  And I agree, the nominations concern me greatly.  They have been brought to the attention of WP:AN/I.  Navou   talk  06:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for appealing to my better nature. I definitely came on a bit strong in my previous comments.  --Ssbohio 06:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Anytime, regards, Navou   talk  06:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

please be careful
Re "hooray for us", please refrain from any appearance of pov endorsement in or near that wikiproject. The project is always under scrutiny by hostile editors who would like to drown it for pov. Thanks for future consideration of this. You're a good editor, by the way. This is just a small reminder. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 08:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. The words are familiar, but do you have a diff of the edit?  I'm not remembering where I might have said that, though I don't doubt that I might have.  Additionally, if the comment was not made in or around mainspace, I'm not sure WP:NPOV is entirely applicable.  Even so, I can see the potential of that text to inflame passions rather than improve the project.  --Ssbohio 15:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here. The POV concern is simply that the project is not supposed to "take sides" but simply to edit all related articles toward FA status, regardless of what any affiliated users like or don't like. Concerns raised in this  unrelated AFD would be similar for this Project. &mdash; coe l acan  t a lk  &mdash; 16:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I had actually found the diff you had raised concern about and was writing my reply when you posted yours.  My intent was to be lighthearted, which prompted me to also include a smiley.  However, I can certainly see the potential for the comment to be seen as gloating (or worse), & I'll be more careful in future.  I still don't see it as POV to be happy about the failure of an AfD on an article that didn't warrant deletion, but I do see my comment as engendering the kind of bad feelings that detract from the project.  It's unfortunate that I can't edit my edit summary.  Thanks for the catch. --Ssbohio 16:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You were probably fine with just that one particular edit. I'm just making sure that people are aware of potential problems that could become more blatant if editors don't know about the thin ice. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 16:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Can someone look at this diff and tell me if there's any way that my edit summary can be edited to remove the "hooray" reference? --Ssbohio 02:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It can't be. If it happened just once, don't worry about it. You can also make another edit and apologize in the edit summary. Xiner (talk, email) 02:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Diffs vs. Edit versions
Btw, this is what a diff should look like. Xiner (talk, email) 02:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think I see the difference.  Would it be better to talk about this edit and conversely this diff?  --Ssbohio 02:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Diffs are almost always more useful, because they show exactly what just changed. Also, you can make a diff across many edits, like so. Note the "(3 intermediate revisions not shown.)" bit. Go to an article's history page and play around with the radio buttons and you'll see what I mean. By the way, I didn't know there were so many user categories on Wikipedia, let alone that they would all be on one person's user page. Hory Cow! &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 08:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, am I just rambling about stuff you already know? Didn't mean to lecture. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 08:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) it's cool, really...
 * I am many things to many people. :-)  In this case, though, since my question was about the edit summary on a particular edit, the changes to the article (unusually enough) didn't enter into the equation.  In hindsight, my main problem was calling an edit a diff, through a flawed understanding of the Wiki-speak.  As an aside, I'm broadly sympathetic to your actions with regard to CyberAnth, if you haven't already picked up on my subtle hints.  --Ssbohio 08:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hah! Take a glance at User talk:CyberAnth. He threatened to stalk all my previous image contributions. I told him to bug off and pointed out that I hadn't stalked him at all. And I haven't; all I did was click through from his user page to the pages he's "proud" of. Which is the whole point of users listing such things. Then he got mad when I nominated the crappy articles and not-really-fair-use images for deletion. He hasn't quite pulled out his sharp tongue on me yet but I've seen him do it to others and I'm frankly amazed that he hasn't received a 24h block for that behavior yet. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 08:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have time, please keep an eye on Articles for deletion/Mary Pride, maybe weigh in with me. A lot of users are coming out of the woodwork and making some very sad, half-assed arguments. It would be nice if it didn't look like I was the one person replying, a lone crackpot trying to sink the article. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 15:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence tampering
Research to collect and organize source information is OK. But when you put this thing over here together with that thing over there to come up with a criminal accusation, that accusation should be cited to someone making the accusation, not a statute. Gazpacho 16:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In short, the accusation is cited to Tarpley, the law is cited to the statute. Information about the allegation of evidence tampering was removed as (apparently) unsourced.  The allegation is in Tarpley's book, which I cited & linked.  The statute defines the criminal conduct to which Tarpley explicitly referred.  Whatever your personal opinion, removing sourced information strikes me as an unproductive way to make your point.  Further, to assert that my referencing the ruling New York state statute is a form of original research implies an assumption of bad faith regarding my edit.
 * From the article:
 * "Webster Tarpley, in particular, has criticized the official response to the crime scene, saying the speedy cleanup resulted in the destruction of most of the evidence, identifying the New York City Mayor's office as a key player in this regard.(Tarpley, Webster G. 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA. Chapter 6) Under Tarpley's theory, this would constitute evidence tampering under New York state law.(Section 215.40)"
 * While I don't subscribe to the controlled demolition theory, I went to the trouble of improving content that had previously been erased, in order to preserve a full picture. I know you are working hard to improve the article and apply our community standards, but I feel that pressing your perspective by removal of sourced information does not support the collaborative effort.  --Ssbohio 00:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:LGBT
WP:LGBT Hello, I noticed you have our userbox on your page, but you don't appear to be on our membership list. Did you forget to add yourself? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject LGBT studies!
-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
{| width=100% cellpadding=10px 10px 5px 5px;
 * style='border: 2px solid #9B75AD; background-color: #EED8EE;' |

WP:LGBT Coordinator Election Notice
This is just a quick, automated note to let you know that there is an election being conducted over the next 7 days for the position of &quot;Coordinator&quot; for the LGBT WikiProject. Your participation is requested. --
 * }

Aviation Newsletter delivery
The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject newsletter
SatyrBot 05:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A Smile


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Dalmation 05:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

LGBT WikiProject newsletter
This month's project newsletter (hand delivered as SatyrTN and Dev920 are away). Best wishes, WjBscribe 03:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries in Justin Berry
Thanks for your note. Yes, edit summaries are important for communication with other editors. But they are not the part of editing that we spend much time or attention on, and they can't be fixed if need be. If I have any reputation on Wikipedia it must include horrendous typos in edit summaries.

I suppose that the change from apparently inspired by this case to may have drawn inspiration from this case was slightly more than mere copyediting, but not much more. Anyway, I'll try to be more verbose in the future. -Will Beback · † · 18:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:User:Trampton/Gag
No thanks.--Trampton 17:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank You All
It is kind of funny because it really isn't my birthday. It was on March 9, but thank you all for your kind words and support.

As you all know, some hacker cracked my password and I have been stripped of my admin powers. I can understand an admin. being blocked, but stripped of his powers without a fair hearing or consensus, I can't. I have stated that I changed my password and would like my powers back, however the chastizing going on in [] has sadden me. It doesn't matter how many articles you have written, contributions you have made or how many years you have dedicated to making this project a credible one. A hacker, it seems has the power of making people consider you an untrustful person and turning some people in the community against you.

I have never abused of my powers and I have used Wikipedia as a medium to educate others. Yes, I have no regrets about having made so many contributions to the Pedia. I exhort all of my friends here to make sure that their passwords are strong ones so that you will not have to go through what I am going through.

I did promise some of my friend a couple of articles and as a good Marine I will keep my promise. To my friends here, Thank you for your friendship. Tony the Marine 23:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

BKWSU
Ssbohio, i am not new to the wikipedia and it is not an attack, i will re-write in an even more neutral fashion -- Green108 17:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. When I read it, it seemed rather focused on the person instead of their contributions, but I can certainly see now where your intention was different from my interpretation.  Please accept my apology for any offense caused.  --Ssbohio 17:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Green108 is not new and it is an attack. Please check his contribs and judge for yourself. He has been warned by me and other editors. Check his talk page history (the page keeps getting blanked). Thanks Bksimonb 08:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The particular revert could be an attack or it could be a strong (even intemperate) criticism. Do you have some diffs for me to look at so I can make a better judgment?  Have you considered dispute resolution?  My connection to this discussion has been strictly the placement of a "drive-by" warning on his talk page.  I'm not up on the history here, but I'm willing to learn.  --Ssbohio 08:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Ssbohio. I am attempting dispute resolution but this has been complicated by a number of factors including me thinking the issue was covered by the probation of the article, and having to wait for an Advocate to take a month long wikibreak.


 * Attempts to reason with Green108 can be seen here before he blanked the page.


 * Another example of a personal attack is here.


 * I have good reason to believe that Green108 is a leading anti-BKWSU activist associated with the brahmakumaris.info website where he posts as Mr Green (note he has just uploaded an image by the same name ) and is not the first editor associated with this website to use Wikipedia as a propganda outlet. Others can be identified here . For more information see the arbitration case.


 * I would appreciate it if you re-assert the NPA warning since I am quite certain it is a personal attack not made in innocence. It assumes bad faith, makes false allegations and uses my affiliation with the BKWSU to discredit me.


 * Regards Bksimonb 12:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

simon is a follower and sort of official representative of the brahma kumaris world spiritual university, he is part of their IT team that has in the past attempted to control and turn into an advert what they see as negative criticisms or exposure of the organization...........

at present he appears to be trying to build up a case based mainly on slur or provoke me in order to have me banned ,just as he and another Bk member called avyakt7 managed to have another inform user banned................i do not see what the problem is ,the article is very well referenced now

i personally am not the sort to go around lobying admins putting in loaded complaints all the time................if a third party wishes to know what my position and opinions are, i am very happy to discuss matters with them

i noted that simon also immediately had banned a new user potentially connected to the Reachout Trust ,a cult awareness organization that has published articles about the brahma kumaris.............within the context ,i do not think that is an attack upon him but rather a courtesy on the new user

oh, i should say that it is simon that i am quoting on my talk page.

Green108 05:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Green108. Show the diffs to back up what you are claiming. Otherwise, repeated accusations are also a form of personal attack. Also, if you want to complain about me, please use the normal dispute resolution process and not this talk page. I already listed your options on your talk page before you blanked it.Bksimonb 10:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Bouncer
Hi. I am just talking to the guy who recently changed this article. Basically, it seems like he's worked in the industry, and that rubbed off on the article. Also, I'm trying to get him to understand that its not a good thing to have such a long article without references. I hope you won't mind me taking the advert tag out once I rewrote it. The references tag will have to stay some time longer, I fear, though I am working on it... MadMaxDog 03:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The improvements you made have removed a portion of the overt bloat and cruft in the article. However, it still reads like something very fannish or like a puff piece extolling the virtues of the noble bouncer.  References would help, but even with references, the article needs to have a neutral, objective sort of tone. --Ssbohio 03:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't done. MadMaxDog 03:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I figured as much, but that didn't come through in my comments above. Sorry about that.  My meaning was that I think the advert tag should stay in for now, but could come out when the article sounds more encyclopedic.  --Ssbohio 03:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:The Konieczny connection
Thanks for the note; it is not a very common name although it is shared by few hundred individuals in Poland (add or take a 0 in either direction :>). My branch of the family is rooted in Czeladź and Szczyrzyc areas.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of suicide userbox


First and foremost, I was sort of expecting a comment to reopen the discussion; after all, this is a controversial topic of discussion. I wanted the closure comment to be short and concise, rather than making an essay and stating my reasons why.



I have most definitely considered the closure after your comment on my talk page, and I'm going to have to decline. Although the numbers are pretty even regarding the endorse/overturn count, the arguments made on the endorse side seem to be stronger. Other reasons-




 * Wikipedia doesn't offer medical advice. User:Clayoquot, an opposer, mentioned that deleting the template would be like deleting the Nearsighted template because they suggest medical advice. But there is a difference- being suicidal is a serious mental and pshycological problem, rather than being nearsighted, which a good bunch of people are (me included). User:Wooyi also commented "...we have userboxes to indicate the user being Republican, Democrat, libertarian, goth, emo, geek, depressed, aspie, why we can't indicate the user is suicidal?" To be a Republican is alright. The same with Democrats. But suicidal? Being suicidal means wanting to kill yourself, am I right? This is not opinion; this is a real problem. Suicide is an issue of life and death, and making this open for discussion may be going a little too far, let alone sugesting and bringing unwanted personal, emotional, and medical issues that are not related to Wikipedia at all. To add, people say that suicidal people need to discuss their issues here to recover or receive further help. But this is not the place to discuss such matters!




 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to discuss unrelated "discussion forum" issues. Let's keep it so.




 * The userbox can definitely used for disruption and trolling; simply read User:SunStar Net's comment at the review. I find it troubling that most "claims" to be suicidal are either planks or people that are seriously depressed, not suicidal.



I hope you find this reply satisfactory to your concerns on the closure. Sr13 04:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)





Your detailed rebuts convince me enough to reopen the discussion. I will grant your wish. Sr13 09:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Your VandalProof Request
Thank you for applying for VandalProof!. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that: "...several warnings on the userpage - e.g., a POV warning - brings into question the user's suitability for the VandalProof application..." . Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon.

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Anthøny  19:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick response, Anthony. I've reviewed my talk page and I'm not finding the warnings of which you speak.  I've had two Wikipedians each ask about NPOV in a specific circumstance, but surely NPOV can be discussed without its being a warning.  Could you let me know what warnings you're seeing? --Ssbohio 19:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was referring to this warning; might I suggest you make use of some less advanced anti-Vandalism applications, for example VandalSniper. If you can come back to me at my talk page with four or five specific examples of successful and efficient use of VandalSniper, and I can survey your contributions with that program and deem that you have both not abused the program, and helped Wikipedia with your access to it, then I will be happy to speedily allow you access to VandalProof.
 * Kind regards, Anthøny  19:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good compromise in the finest traditions of Wikipedia. In my own defense, I'll point out that Will's message was about my personal POV regarding the subject of an article, and was not (AFAIK) a warning of any kind about POV editing.  Editors have points of view; their edits must not.  Thanks for taking the time to explain things to me.  --Ssbohio 21:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey There, Kids - controversy / validity
Hey Ssbohio, I was the one who added the bit about "Controversy" regarding the Hey There, Kids video on Whitest Kids U' Know. That's simply based off some YouTube comments I read, so you can completely delete that section if you'd like. Nonetheless, I'm pretty sure it would attract much controversy if aired on mainstream television. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viper2k6 (talk • contribs)
 * I'm sure you're right. Kind of like any song that looks at (what do you call it?) the "lightr side" of sexual abuse?  Anyway, feel free to edit or rewrite th section in a neutral tone without referring to what "many" or some think because the state,ments are unsourced.  I think the song should be mentioned in the article, but I think claims about commentary on it need to come from reliable sources.  On a side note, if you type ~ after your talk page comment, it will include your name & the time/date of the comment.  Thanks! --Ssbohio 21:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

rv
hey thanks for the revert on my user page! --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I figured you'd have added the userbox yourself if you wanted to be Gay on Wikipedia, not that there's anything wrong with that.  But, one day, Dan, I'll come to you for a favor. :-) --Ssbohio 01:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A special deal you mean? I can't wait! --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Kayla Rolland
To mark the article for AFD, place the tag at the top of the page. That will put a tag at the top of the page which will include preloaded instructions. Follow step 2 and step 3. Let me know if you have any problems with it. Thanks, NawlinWiki 16:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
Delivered on 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC). SatyrBot 16:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

my RFA
Thank you for supporting my RFA. I hope I will live up to your expectation. Let me know if you need any help, or I make any mistake. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

John Browne, Baron Browne of Madingley
Don't know if this is the right place to reply to your message to me (about the Peter Browne article), but there are three different date styles in the same article - I was just trying to make them all the same (US or UK doesn't matter to me). The article currently has these formats: 26 June 2007 June 26, 2007 June 26th, 2007

If it's UK English, they should all be 26 June 2007 (obviously). Sorry for any confusion. No malintent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.243.7.194 (talk • contribs)
 * I agree with you. The style should be consistent throughout the article.  Conventionally, however, the article should reflect UK English because its subject is from the UK and his claim to fame is his involvement with British Petroleum.  Generally, though, where either of two styles is acceptable, it is not recommended to make changes for the sole purpose of changing from one style to the other.  I apologize that I didn't catch on to the issue with the multiple date styles in the article.  Logged-in users see all wikilinked dates in their preferred format.  I will see both 1 January & January 1 in the format I choose (1 January) regardless of how they're entered.  One way to reduce confusion about the purpose of an edit is to use a descriptive Edit summary.  Another thing you can do is add ~ to the end of your talk page comments, which attaches your name & the date/time to the comment.  Thanks so much for taking my comments in the spirit intended, as I know you were trying to improve the article, and please keep up the good work. --Ssbohio 23:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)