User talk:Sxeptomaniac/Archive 1

Shunning page edits
Heh... boy do I suck. Thanks for all the spelling fixes and such. I guess it was pretty late. --Christian Edward Gruber 16:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

consistent place names?
Do you really believe place names should have consistent names? No other category of article names in Wikipedia has such a policy. In fact, outside of the unfortunate practice of having consistent names for most (but not all) U.S. cities, no other category of place names has such a policy. No real encyclopedia has such a policy. The primary Wikipedia naming policy is used instead: the most used/recognizable name, which is never the case for [community, city, state]. Don't you think having this hokey policy makes Wikipedia look unprofessional? --Serge 00:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How many "real" encyclopedias have to deal with the large number of articles that Wikipedia has? Places (as in geographic areas) are one thing, but communities are more of political entities (like cities) than geographical ones, so the articles should be named by a similar system.  Secondly, we have to think ahead on this: a consistent system of naming communities helps head off ambiguous names before we have to deal with the issue.


 * I think naming a community without listing city and state seems unprofessional. I predict [community, city, state] will have to be the standard for people who will eventually write articles on various Chinatown communities.  If some communities will have to go by [community, city, state], we should probably seek to have it apply to as many as possible.  Planning and consistency are traits of professionalism here, not just looking at what others are doing, because their situation may not apply.


 * I don't really understand why some people want community names to stand alone so badly, myself. In cases, like La Jolla, where the community name is unique, a simple redirect will suffice, rather than seeking to move the entire article. Sxeptomaniac 07:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not see your response until today. Thank you.  You can go to any number of on-line encyclopedias and search for just about any community name in Wikipedia, and you will find the article named as the community name, not according to the silly and ironically unconventional community, city, state format "convention".  Search for La Jolla at encyclopedia.com, encarta.msn.com, and bartleby.com, for example.


 * As to the argument that the convention allows for managing potential ambiguities in advance, there is limited utility in doing so, with benefits only for editors, none for readers, and in doing so useful information is lost for readers. The utility of doing so is limited because the rate at which new communities are created is very low, so the rate of change in this area is very low.  If there is no ambiguity for a given community name today (like La Jolla), then there will probably be no ambiguity a year from now.  For the few new communities that are created occasionally, ambiguity situations can be easily and effectively handled on an as-needed basis.  As to the information lost for readers from disambiguating in advance... except for U.S. cities and communities, the Wiki standard is to disambiguate if and only if there is an actual disambiguity.  That way, if the main article name is Name, then it is clear to the reader that there is no ambiguity.  And if the article name is Name (disambiguity qualifier), usually with a link in italics to a disambiguity page, then that is useful information too.  Per the current convention, the article names for San Francisco, California and Portland, Oregon, and thus any reference links to them, tell us nothing about whether there are other cities named San Francisco and Portland.  However, if we used the standard Wiki convention for U.S. cities of disambiguating only when required, then readers would have that information in the articles names (and reference links) of San Francisco and Portland (Oregon).  Disambiguating city and community names in advance benefits only editors, not readers, and even so the utility is marginal.  At the same time, by disambiguating in advance, we are hiding potentially useful information from the reader.  So disambiguating U.S. city and community names in advance arguably violates the overall principle of Wikipedia's naming conventions:


 * Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.


 * You say you think "naming a community without listing city and state seems unprofessional". In that case, ALL professional encyclopedias and other references must seem unprofessional to you.  Do they?  With all due respect, I suggest your perspective is skewed regarding what the professional standards are with respect to naming communities (and cities for that matter) in encyclopedias, newspapers, magazines, books and other standard reference publications.  Regardless of how it seems to you, by any objective standard I can fathom, it is the current unique and unconventional Wiki naming conventions for U.S. cities and communities that are unprofessional.


 * As to why some of us want community and city names to stand alone... it is simply because we want Wikipedia to have a professional appearance. Article names like La Jolla, San Diego, California, Los Angeles, California and Hollywood, Los Angeles, California are particularly hackish and unprofessional in appearance.


 * I ask you to carefully consider what I have said here, and invite you to join me in an effort to professionalize Wikipedia in the realm of U.S. city and community article naming, just as it already is in most other areas. Let me know.  Thank you for your time.  --Serge 17:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Paradigm shifts can take time. Most people who are comfortable within one paradigm have difficulty seeing the other one, much less the benefits of it. The shift will take time, and someone has to get the ball rolling.  Why not us?   The avoiding ambiguity and having consistency-in-naming-formats values that you cite benefit editors, not readers.  Our decisions are supposed to favor the experience of readers over editors.   There is no value to a reader in a naming convention that is designed to avoid ambiguity "in advance" in a consistent fashion.  Besides, there is nothing wrong or inconsistent with a naming policy that uses the most common name, except when there is an ambiguity, in which case disambiguity information is added in parenthesis in the name.  In fact, that is the consistent naming convention used on practically every Wikipedia page outside the realm of U.S. cities and communities.  Worse, following this artificial convention creates names that are amateurish/hokey in appearance (see: Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, blech!), which hinders the Wikipedia reader's experience.  --Serge 22:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Eh, go ahead
I don't really care enought about the Soho beverage article to try and stage a recovery. Since it only had one other edit before you arrived, I'd say that if you think it should be canned, go for it. -Litefantastic 23:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

JUST A QUESTION ON RfC That you saw before editing Rotary International
Hello, we introduced an RfC at that link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Society%2C_law%2C_and_sex

that was REPLACED by the pro-Rotarian. Check History page please. Would you be so kind to say us : what was the text you read : - our original claim ? - or the text placed in replacement by BridesMill ? May we have your opinion on that replacement that bridesmill did (substitution) ? Thank you

Our original text was placed three times in three subjects for RfC : ethics, politics, society, just one was replaced. By which subject did you came to visit our discussion ? Was it by the page with the text that BridesMill substituted to ourse ? Salutations, thank you PierreLarcin2 20:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK Thanks for comment. We were here shocked that the edit war went on us at the RfC page even, so wondered if this could influence you. WA ask comment and WE do not see our work as it was presented aka "shortened" by the other party. WE DO NOT ASK like that.

Still being shocked. We let long things/comments on RfC because we do not want to hide multiple aspects 84.102.229.124 20:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The Halo's RfA



 * Hey Sxeptomaniac, thank you for the very kind offer of future support, after all your kindness already. It is very encouraging :) Th ε Halo Θ 20:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation has been filed
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Neo-Fascism, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. - DNewhall 05:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 12:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

Crosscut saws
I noted that this is the second time that you write that western saws also cut on the pull stroke. This is not the case, as looking at any basic woodworking book would show. If you look at the geometry of a properly sharpened crosscut handsaw, you will see that it, at best, only scrapes on the pull stroke. Unless you had a buck saw instead of a cross-cut saw in mind, which is a different animal. Luigizanasi 01:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

WP Christianity
Hi, I saw your name on the WikiProject Christianity Membership page.

I've made some changes to the WP Christianity main project page, added several sup-project pages, created a few task forces section, and proposed several more possible changes so that we can really start making some serious progress on the project. Please stop by and see my comments on the project talk page here and consider joining a task force or helping out with improving and contributing to our sub-projects. Thanks for your time! Nswinton 13:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Sxeptomaniac, thanks for your kind words in support of my RfA, and for your support of my sig. In the end, it seemed most reasonable to just change it back, avoiding any chance of being disruptive with it. Please feel free to drop me a note any time if there is anything that I might be able to do for you. Pastordavid 15:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You may want to comment
A community sanction noticeboard report has been made about User:Anacapa. I have been watching the Shunning talk page and I thought you might want to comment at the noticeboard--Cailil  talk 23:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery
Greetings! My nomination and your delete recommendation are currently the only !votes to delete in Articles for deletion/Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery. There are secondary sources for the hatchery; however, they seem to all be in pay archives at this time. They're out there, though, so the hatchery is notable and verifiable. I'm ready to withdraw my nomination (if you are willing to change your recommendation) or just close it early as a keep (if you don't change but do not object). If you do object, please let me know on my talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't online over the weekend, so I just saw this. I still question if it really is very notable, but I defer to consensus. Sxeptomaniac 00:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Arkish
Thank you very much for your kind remarks. It was really long past time for me to have stepped away, so some perspective on my part was sorely needed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A Refreshing Voice of Reason
I've been wondering whether and when someone with a voice of reason would weigh in on the controversy.

I appreciated seeing this on your user page...

I've tried to identify the most problematic flaws, diagnose their root causes, and suggest some remedies. So far, I have not yet discovered a functional or efficacious way to restrain the abuses or to alleviate the considerable damage they wreak on the lives of real people. Moulton 20:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you busy?
Do you have time to take a look at, and possibly help, a Problem Editor? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks much, whenever you have the time. I was moved to ask you by seeing your attempts with Moulton. This is a similar case, of an editor with a strong personal POV and an inadequate grasp of Wikipedia. The editor in question is User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, and while he might go the way of Moulton I would be appreciative if you would attempt to reach him before such a final option is the only one left to us. His contribs and talk page history will probably tell you all you need to know, beyond the section on my talk page here. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And he is now listed for topic ban here, which IMO is a Good Idea due to COI. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied here. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A B Pepper
Unfortunately I have had to deal with users like this before. I've actually notified two sysops of the problem but nothing is happening yet. If you want to reinforce my comments with a second opinion - drop a line to User:Duja or User:Seraphimblade - the sections are labeled with the user's name and former IP 75.132.95.79. If something isn't done within hours I'm bringing this to WP:ANI. As far as I'm concerned this isn't RFC/U grounds, A B Pepper is blatantly violating policy and disrupting of wikipedia to make a point. If they aren't blocked when sysops review this then I'd consider an RFC--Cailil  talk 16:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I was actually going to leave a comment here concerning this very subject. There are several examples of this user's contentious behavior that are to my knowledge; for example, here, here, here, here, here and here. Oh, and it seems here as well, directed towards you.--C.Logan 22:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Beware of user Ghanadar galpa
Please let me aware you of user Ghanadar galpa. User Ghanadar galpa seems to be an irrational Indophilic propagandist. See the Talk:Human rights in India. There he have falsely accused me that I have violated WP:CIVIL by boldifying words and refering him in third person in a article talk page? He had added POV texts in Human rights in India page. Custodial death is very high in India, torture in widespread in police custody. But user Ghanadar galpa tried to make it seems like that the police is innocent and the custodial deaths are exaggerated. In the Custodial death section of that article, he added texts like "The media in India enjoys a wide measure of freedom and has enormous reach and power. Technological advances witnessed during the last few decades have provided the media with new abilities hitherto denied them", which I later deleted. He is accusing me that I am not neutral. But the truth is that, it seems user Ghanadar galpa cannot tolerate any article or text which depict human rights violation in India, which depict violence against non-Indian religions in India. As I am trying to bring the truth in light, he is accusing me that I am not neutral. In India, violence against Christians by Hindu-nationalists is a issue. Conversion to Christianity or trying to convert someone to Christianity may result in death in India. His motivation is very clear. He is using wikipedia as a tool to spread a dirty Indophilic propaganda. See this. He have just whitewashed the mention of anti-Indian sentiment in Sri Lanka. Why? Seems very clear. He could not tolerate the texts "The atrocities committed by the Indian Peacekeeping Force and support for LTTE in southern India".
 * User Ghanadar galpa is presently busy in a dirty propaganda campaign against me and articles I have created. He is more likely to disrupt the articles and texts he claim "anti-Indian".
 * He used several wikipedia policies abusively. He nominated the article Anarchism in India for speedy deletion claiming it attack page. See this. Anarchism an attack page? Please note anarchism has nothing to do with attck. In wikipedia, there are articles depicting anarchist movements in various countries. Thus this article depict anarchist movement in India. See Talk:Anarchism in India. Also List of anarchist movements by region. Currenty he has nominated Anarchism in India for deletion to spread anti-Anarchist propaganda.
 * He also used anonymous IP address besides his username to edit wikipedia. The IP address 70.112.72.233 is used by this user for editing same texts. See this and this. This IP address has good contributions to the article on Bharatiya Janata Party, a political party in India known for there Hindutva ideology. See this IP address's contribution to the Hinduism in Malaysia - added information on anti-Hindu incidents.
 * See his edit in Deepa Mehta, a film-director faced opposition by Hindu fundamentalists. He added criticism section. His intentions are clear. He is trying to disparge subjects critical to Hindu fundamentalism.
 * I have created an article Anti-Christian violence in India. I know fanatic Hindu fundamentalists will not be able to tolerate this article. User Ghanadar galpa has nominated this article for deletion.
 * I have created an article Crime against foreigners in India. Do you know rape incidents on foreigners are increasing in India? Scam are prevalent in India with scam artists preying for foreign tourists? I have added all these information in that article. But some user have nominated it for deletion claiming it non-notable. Now user Ghanadar galpa is abusingly trying to distract the debate there. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crime against foreigners in India and see  and . He is now busy to distract votes from favour of articles I have created which this guy see "anti-Indian". I want to  acknowledge good editors these facts. Thanks and regards.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This fellow is engaging in a smear campaign against me in multiple talk pages that tantamounts to a personal attack. .Should I report him? Ghanadar galpa (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 3
Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. I'm working my way through the New admin school, carefully double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools, with my main goals being to help out with various backlogs. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. :) I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good new year, --Elonka 01:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Confidential evidence
Hi,

I posted a discussion thread pertaining to a recent edit you made. Your comments are welcome. — xDanielx T/C\R 04:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa
My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 04:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Music of Eastern Europe
Thank you for deposing the Queen of Eastern European music. You must be a Wikback reader. -- 72.244.44.131 (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks. I would like to think that I do have "some reading comprehension skills". Guettarda (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hope you understand what I mean by that. I must admit my frustration over the debate.  It's the main reason I took a break yesterday.  The accusations, particularly from Filll, were completely ridiculous considering we were already apparently in agreement regarding the fundamentals early on.  It seems you were the one that finally understood that we weren't asking for anything significant, and finally responded sensibly instead of with "ZOMG WHITEWASH" (have you ever considered how that is textbook tendentious behavior?)


 * You might want to consider why a number of people on WR have less-than-flattering things to say about your group. That site is occasionally my outlet for frustrations, and the behavior of several of the members of Wikiproject Intelligent Design are a source of frustration for me from time to time.  I find that behavior frustrating because it's frequently irrational, not to mention counterproductive in the long run. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 22:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Offense
I gather I have offended you gravely in some manner at some point in the past. If I am correct in this assumption, please accept my apologies. I do not mean any offense.--Filll (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not so much offense as frustration, Filll. I find it quite frustrating to attempt communication with your group, due to the frequent accusations based on false assumptions.


 * I ran across a very short essay recently that I believe summarizes the heart of assuming good faith rather well. You certainly would have made a better impression the first time we interacted on a talk page if you had taken that tactic.  However, you didn't, so I've found myself speaking up when I notice that same pattern of behavior affecting others.  When it stops, I'll move on. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 00:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (chat) 11:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Your personal attacks
Please strike your personal attacks. Then you can explain to me what it is that is wrong with my interpretation of your comments. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a personal attack until you prove it wrong, Guettarda. I'll give you a couple of days, as I will only be able to check in occasionally in that time. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 06:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it does not work this way. Or else you molest Aliens Baby Vipers from Alpha Centauri! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're replying to me, I think. Your analogy is quite flawed, as Guettarda is the one who has made the attack based on something untrue, then refused to back it up or retract it.  I have good reason to believe it is a lie.  I've checked all 50 of my postings at WR prior to the accusation, and nothing comes remotely close to what Guettarda claimed.  If Guettarda didn't want the accusation to be called a lie, he should have been ready to back it up. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 19:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In order to call something a lie, you need to show that it is an intentional untruth. You may be convinced that the statement was untrue (I have no opinion on this), but how do you know that the writer knew this? Even if your postings are entirely innocent (again, I have no idea about which postings we are talking), he may have confused you with someone else, or may have misread the attribution, or may just have misinterpreted what you wrote. WP:AGF strongly suggests to give him the benefit of the doubt. And indeed, calling him a liar is a personal attack, regardless of wether this attack is true. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You have run into exactly the problem I have: you don't know what posting Guettarda is referring to. Well, I don't either.  I've only made a little over 50 posts to Wikipedia Review, but I checked them all .  None say what Guettarda claimed, nor do I believe any could be interpreted to do so.  I know several editors on WP critical of some of my opinions have been watching my posts at WR, and none of them found it, either.  Guettarda has recently implied that I edited the supposed statement, but any such posting would be marked as recently edited by myself.


 * I have avoided calling Guettarda a liar, as that would be assuming something I do not know regarding their character. One lie does not necessarily make a person a liar.


 * You brought up some possibilities, which I find unlikely, considering the relative seriousness of the accusation. WP:AGF does not apply when there is evidence to the contrary.  However, I would have accepted either of those excuses, so long as a retraction were included.  Despite what some would claim, Guettarda is not my primary concern, but the accusation against myself. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 21:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design RfC
At this RfAR, you've expressed an interest in a RfC on behaviour of editors at articles related to intelligent design. As an outcome, User:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC provides a Workspace, with discussion at User talk:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. We also must try to resolve the dispute and as a first step my suggestion is developing guidelines or procedures aimed improving behaviour from now on, so that the desired outcomes can be achieved amicably. Your assistance and comments will be much appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 14:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC notice
Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found at Requests for comment/Sceptre, Sxeptomaniac, SirFozzie, B, where you may want to participate. Odd nature (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oy.. suggest slight change in your statement
Besides, even if all the named editors stopped now, there are several others not that would continue discussions, and WP editors could just join under alternate pseudonyms and say the same things.

Should be

Besides, even if all the named editors stopped now, there are several others that would continue discussions, and WP editors could just join under alternate pseudonyms and say the same things. SirFozzie (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's been a long few days, just dealing with real life, so I figured I'd miss something in proofreading.  Fixed. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 04:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Protestant branches diagram
Thank you for your message on my talk page. I certainly admit that some aspects of the diagram are tentative -- I did the best I could with the information available to me. The origins of Protestant denominations seems a fairly messy thing! I agree with you that the link between the English separatists and the early Baptists seems fairly solid, and so a solid line on the diagram may be appropriate. The problem with this however is that some Baptists might argue the "Baptist perpetuity" viewpoint, thus denying a lineage from the English church. What do you think? Tonicthebrown (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do agree that baptist successionism is a tenuous idea. The Encarta article aside, is there other good evidence that the worldwide Baptist movement (i.e. not just the English baptists) had its origins in English separatism? Also, what do you think of the rest of the diagram? Tonicthebrown (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA Review
Hello. I've noticed that you have a completed set of responses to the RfA Review question phase at User:Sxeptomaniac/RfA review, but they don't seem to be included on the list of responses here. If you've completed your responses, please can you head to RfA Review/Question/Responses and add a link to them at the bottom of the list so that they get included in the research. We have a closing date of midnight UTC on 1st July, so please add your link before this date. Once again, thank you for taking the time to participate in the Question Phase of RfA Review.Gazimoff Write Read 16:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Picard
Step in here" Talk:Rosalind Picard. I can't deal with this right now. I'm not angry, or upset. But I just can't deal with this. It needs mediation or something. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's cool. I'll see what I can do.  Hope everything's OK. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 21:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't enjoy being ganged up on. Meh. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it sucks. To date, Guettarda's the only editor on this site that's managed to truly piss me off.  I'll just take my time and see if we can find some way to work things out. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 22:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't care too much, I just hate the edit warring. I added a lot to the page so it shows up on my watch list. I don't like the destabilization. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Good thought
Well, I thought this made a lot of sense, anyway, but it didn't seem to interrupt the arguing. MastCell Talk 23:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Addendum: wrong diff - please see below. MastCell Talk 18:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confused... I think this was either the wrong link or posted on the wrong talk page. I've been mostly avoiding Sarah Palin, as the editing is too heated right now, and I strongly oppose her politics, so I would only do minor editing, if any. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 00:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * D'oh... poor cut-and-paste discpline on my part. I meant to say that your comment at WP:AN here made a lot of sense and seemed like a sadly overlooked voice of reason. As to the Sarah Palin diff, I should clarify that I absolutely do not think that this editor's comment was reasonable or approrpiate. Sigh... MastCell Talk 18:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, MastCell. I figured it must have been at AN, but I didn't want to jump to conclusions and end up just patting myself on the back.  The argument's gotten a little off-base, it seems, as there are some old wounds and unresolved issues on both sides, and JzG's proposal just stirred everyone up, I think. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 21:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, sorry
See on that dead thread. I didn't mean for that to sound the way I now think it does (like criticism). Usually when I bloviate I catch myself before I hit the "Save" button (but that may be a matter of opinion). I also agree with MastCell, just above. -- Noroton (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Olive branch
Consider it extended and accepted. We have no issues of which I am aware, and if I'm senile and forgetting some, then we can leave it at that, or if it is that I've wronged you somewhere, please let me know and we'll work it out. Good enough? ("No" is an acceptable answer btw.) KillerChihuahua?!? 21:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Jasenovac
We are having new discussion about "Jasenovac Holocaust Extermination camp". Because of your comments in last discussion (2007) with which we have created consensus you are called to new discussion. All editors from last RFC are called to discussion on Template talk:The Holocaust. --Rjecina (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD
I'm nominating an article you have worked on for deletion. Please see: Articles for deletion/Christian cult (2nd nomination). Borock (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Central Valley
Hi there, I've just joined the California Wikiproject. I'm dropping you a note because I notice you're interested in the Valley. I am interested in working with a group of editors to improve the Central Valley's Wikipedia presence. For example, the Central Valley (California) article is assessed "top importance" but has the lowest possible quality rating. You seem especially interested in water infrastructure. I'm a student of water law and would like to better highlight the role of water in the Valley, especially the CVP/SWP. If you're willing to help with ideas or writing, then by all means drop by the project talk page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_California. Thanks! ferretstew (talk) 09:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)