User talk:THB/Archive 2

Moving Sanskar Kendra to Museum at Ahmedabad
Hello. You moved the article Sanskar Kendra to Museum at Ahmedabad. Can you tell me the reason for the move? Museum at Ahmedabad is not the same as Sanskar Kendra which is the name of the museum. Regards - Aksi_great (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello. The link that you gave me is a picture of the Sanskar Kendra - the museum built by Le Corbusier. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. I am not sure of the English translation. "Kendra" in means center as in "center for studies". "Sankar" has different meanings, but I think here it means values as in "moral values". So the name Sanskar Kendra could translate to Centre for Values - but I could be wrong. I will try and get some pics for both the buildings. There are also some houses in Ahmedabad designed by Corbusier. I'll see what I can do. Regards, - Aksi_great (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Category notice
Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 16:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 20:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Awesome work
I've been on a Wikibreak and came back to find some awesome changes to several articles I was working on or watching (CSICOP, TM, and Natasha Demkina for a start!), and I see that a lot of those changes are your doing - especially in dealing with one specific vicious editor who seems to have left Wikipedia - an editor that I found particularly vexing because of his constant personal attacks, distortions and extended diatribes. I see you were quite effective in dealing with him. I just wanted to express my admiration for your work on Wikipedia! Dreadlocke ☥  04:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Dividend
Good work on the dividend article. Been needing love for some time now. Legis 10:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

RFA
 Selmo would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Selmo to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Your input re: "front/back" for "obverse/reverse"
Thanks for your reasoned response to my Reference Desk query. I'm fortunate in that the captions are displayed by electronic means and I have "back office" access for correcting them. Now I'm trying to summon the gumption to perform a search on the source text files prior to doing the actual changes :-/  So I appreciate having support on this! -- Deborahjay 09:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Newbie Error
Hi THB. I am sorry for the confusion on the Transcendental Meditation page. I am completely new to Wikipedia. I went through the Editing Tutorial, and there was absolutely no mention of the necessity to collaborate on a "discussion page". After going through the tutorial, the only thing a newbie would know to do is to pitch in and start editing. When my entries started disappearing, I had no idea that I should consult a History page, I assumed there was some problem so just reposted. I finally noticed the "History" tab and upon looking at it that was my first clue that I had made some sort of mistake. Apologies for the mistakes but there really should be something in the editing tutorial about the necessity to collaborate. Tanaats 20:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Tanaats

Index cases
Thanks for clearing that up. StvnLunsford 21:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!


Thank you for wishing me well too. | A ndonic O Talk 10:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Award
Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

Opinion on the reference desk
(moved to reference desk) -THB 02:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI, I moved the discussion again to Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk. Moving it to the reference desk itself was inappropriate, because the reference desk is not a discussion page about the reference desk; that's the reason I talked to you on your own talk page in the first place.  But if you prefer to talk on the ref desk's talk page, that is fine too. -- SCZenz 04:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion on Dec. 1
Hello, External link on Aphasia: I know all of the aphasia organizations in the external links. All help to navigate the isolating and confusing world of the aphasic (of which I am very familiar). Two of them have similar speech therapy programs, just like the one deleted. Many caregivers, families, friends, and aphasics (if they can) use Wikipedia and other internet sources to find treatment options of this devastating condition. If this deletion is wrong, please let me know why these other links are OK. Thank you very much, JaniceRsurvivor 17:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Nursing COTM
Hi, Do you think we should change the Nursing COTM for December as November's Nursing assessment is still not that brilliant & only you & I did much on it?&mdash; Rod talk 08:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Refs & footnotes - International Nurses Day
I don't quite understand your comment on International Nurses Day about refs & footnotes - the ones I added & cited in the text should be references not footnotes - the others which appear as references are not cited in the text & I would call external links see Citing sources&mdash; Rod talk 22:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to subst: templates!
Hi,

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use &#123;&#123;subst:test&#125;&#125; instead of &#123;{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

Thanks! :)

Hbackman 23:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Re Message on User:MartinBot
Hi - thanks for reporting that - I'll make a further report to the error listing where the problems encountered should contribute to making the bots better in future. Again, thanks M a rtinp23 20:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why?
Why the revert on the CSICOP article? There was no change of content, only alphabetizing and bringing the article inline with style guidelines. -- Fyslee 21:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have replied on my talk page. -- Fyslee 19:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment wanted on User:light current's one week block
I, and User:Gandalf61, and others, feel that the action of User:Friday in blocking User:light current for a week was unwarranted and excessive:. We would appreciate your comments in this matter. Thanks. StuRat 10:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested
Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI
(seems a bit off-topic for Wikipedia talk:Reference desk) FYI, admins cannot do sock-checking. There's a function called "checkuser" and it's a very restricted group of who can do it. In any case, alternate accounts are allowed as long as they're not abused. The only admin action I know of with respect to the RD was the block and subsequent unblock/parole of Light current. I really really hope people don't see this as "admins versus the reference desk"- that's absolutely not how it should be. I encourage any editor to use their judgment and remove posts that are particularly egregious. I encourage all editors to provide useful answers and try to nudge (not bludgeon) others into doing the same. Friday (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A modest proposal
Hi THB - thanks for keeping the conversation alive on the RD - I think I'm going to call it a day, and I think I'm going to leave things as is. I've written all there is which needed to be said I think, and it's time for me to move on. There's a lot of good nuggets there, so hopefully some Wikipedians will pick up on what I've tried to get at. In the meantime, I cannot guarantee that I will be around the RD for a sustained period, but do keep an eye out for my edits there - I have a feeling that some normalcy can come back to the project soon. Cheers, HappyCamper 20:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Lollipop for you
Hi, THB. Just passing through, on a Wiki-break for the most part. But I checked out the RD's talk page, and from what I can see, it just keeps on cooking. I also saw your question regarding the Lollipop Guild and it made me smile. Appreciating your dry sense of humor, and your straightforward answers and remarks, I'd like to add some slurpy sweetness: Here's a lollipop! (but you have to share it with the boy in the wool hat). Sorry, the picture is much too large, but I don't know jack about these things and couldn't reduce its size. I suppose you'll just have to gobble it up quickly. Take care and happy editing. ---Sluzzelin 20:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I resized it...my, what a beautiful picture! --HappyCamper 20:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nurse
I see you are a nurse. My mom was too. I'm a PT. -- Fyslee 20:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up
Regarding this, this kind of follow up is pretty standard procedure when dealing with problem editors. Maybe you don't do much of that kind of work here, I dunno. But, I highly encourage you to check contributions and talk page before deciding how to proceed with probably-not-serious questions. Time that we spend responding to trolls or vandals could be spent helping good-faith questioners instead. I feel that helping good-faith questioners is time better spent. Friday (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Fundamentally different approaches
Replying to this here since it's about me and my conduct more than the RD specifically. I think we have fundamentally different approaches. Say something nice? What?!? I'm not here to be anybody's friend. (Or enemy.) I'm here to work on the encyclopedia, which I'm sure is around here somewhere. But, point taken- I've realized that my approach has been ineffective. If I think people are doing things wrong, I should nudge them, not bludgeon them. Friday (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Point Taken
Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I fully agree that the RefDesk was not the proper forum for the comments I directed towards Clio, and I apologize for that. I hope, though, that my enormous respect for Wikipedia generally comes through in my posts. I do my best to answer questions with as much accuracy and civility as I'm capable of. Yet, in my defense, it's not the obnoxious and condescending nature of Clio's posts that are my main concern. Yes, it can be incredibly irritating, but, and I hope you understand my sincerity in saying this, it's the quality and integrity of the RefDesk itself that is my greatest concern.

People come to the RefDesk with questions, and deserve accurate and valid responses. Unfortunately, Clio's responses, though very ably disguised as been authoritative, are far more often than not no more than utter fiction. Yes, we all, yours truly included, make our share of factual errors. But these errors are unintentional, and we all regret when we make them. Yet I've come to realize that for reasons I cannot comprehend, many of Clio's posts almost seem to display some sort of pathological intent to mislead. Worst of all, she happens to possess unusually impressive skills in writing and articulation. In my opinion, these two factors put together have the potential to do a great disservice to both the questioners, as well as the integrity of the RefDesk, and Wikipedia in general. This type of thing simply cannot be tolerated, if the RefDesk and Wikipedia are to maintain the reputation of having the highest of standards.

Once again, I apologize for my lapse in judgement and breach of RefDesk decorum. I only hope that you understand though, that in doing so, I was doing what I felt had to be done, though admittedly not in the proper forum. I'll post a copy of the preceding at the RefDesk talk page as well.

Thanks for your comments, they were well received. Loomis 17:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Opinions on Ref Desk template removal ?
Sorry to bother you again, but would you care to comment on: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk ? StuRat 21:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm
On the contrary, I've realized that the RD has much looser standards than many other pages, so I've become willing to let lots of things slide there. BTW feedback on me personally belongs on my talk page moreso than it belongs on WT:RD. Are you disagreeing with my rhetoric, or my actions? Friday (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Both, and a condescending attitude. Nice of you to "let things slide". -THB 19:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Being condescending is counterproductive. Please do feel free to bring it to my attention if you see that I'm being a jerk.  Friday (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you think I was doing??? I've done it several times. -THB 18:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Friday should recuse himself from all Ref Desk issues, as he is causing problems here, not solving them. StuRat 18:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * StuRat, I sincerely apologize for WP:AGF for far too long with him. Imagine that I insisted that *you* apologize to *him*! -THB 18:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That OK, you have to observe User:Friday to see what he's really up to, it's not obvious, at first. StuRat 18:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference Desk talk page
Do you think your recent comments to the Reference Desk talk page are helpful? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you do not stop trying to disrupt consensus you will likley be left out of the discussion process. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, he isn't trying to disrupt consensus, that's what Friday and a few other Admins are doing. And User:THB will not be left out of the process. StuRat 17:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I don't give a flip any more. It is obvious that Friday came to the RD with an agenda, on top of being condescending and superior-acting.  Let him eliminate it or do whatever the hell he wants to with it.  It's useless to discuss something with some who has already decided what the outcome is to be.  He also is trying to get any criticism of his actions spread around Wikipedia instead of concentrated in one place.  He's setting a very poor example for an administrator with his namecalling and attitude. -18:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The law and the pedia
Replying here since it's not related to the reference desk. Copyright is one area where Wikipedia has to make strong efforts to stay legal. See Copyrights. Friday (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Harassment of newbie’s
I read above about posting harassing messages on discussion pages does that extend to new users? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpritchard (talk • contribs)

Please vote on attempt to delete new Ref Desk rules
Vote here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules. StuRat 01:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User Conduct RFC
I have filed an RFC regarding your treatment of the encyclopedia as a battleground. You can respond here. Unless another user certifies the RFC, it will not remain listed. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hipocrite appears to want to misuse Wikipedia (WP:POINT) to escalate his dispute and bring "false charges" against us. I don't intend to respond unless he gets a second person to certify this crusade of his.  While there are certainly aspects of his behavior which warrant an RFC, I suggest we not file one, as it might also appear to be WP:POINT.  What do you think ?  Also, as Hipocrite mischaracterizes every conversation about him as a personal attack, it would be good for you to enable your email option, as I have done, so we can discuss his "charges" in private.  Also, I would avoid any conversation with him or about him, as he would also take these as personal attacks. StuRat 14:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, he's made that obvious. In light of his e-mails with TenOfAllTrades, I have reluctantly enabled my e-mail.  I do wish all editors, and administrators particularly, would be open and direct in their communication when there are disputed issues but if they aren't, then we must protect ourselves against their attacks. -THB 14:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If User:Hipocrite goes up for RfC, I'd like to add my input. And this sentence is true: "Hipocrite mischaracterizes every conversation about him as a personal attack." For one, there is no rank or authority conferred on a user, just because they have a certain "title." Further, how can "justice" have a chance, if anyone who questions an admin's actions is labelled a "troll," "disruptive," etc? Tragic romance 17:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: I realize Hipocrite is not admin. I was lumping him and Friday together because they've been part of the same conflict and, in some ways, have been doing the same things. Tragic romance 10:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Last
Hi. I think you lost track in the edit skirmish and actually made the last deletion yourself. You may want to undo that. --Justanother 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, there must have been a burp in the system. -THB 20:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm jumping ship
THB - just to let you know that I'm am going to leave the RD guideline and RD talk page discussions. I just can't deal with Radiant and Hipcorite any more. Every time I interact with them I end up feeling disgusted and soiled. I am going to find some far corner of Wikpedia where the air is clean and the water is pure and I can leave their poison far behind. Glad to see your RfC still hasn't got a second endorser. Keep up the good work, and thank you for all your help. Gandalf61 21:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
Note, however, that they have a rule that says: (Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

I think that means you need to remove your endorsements of the other two summaries, since you've added your own. Thanks again ! StuRat 14:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I see a minor typo: "User:StuRat's efforts to do achieve it." StuRat 14:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Miserable failure
Miserable failure

AN/I
There is a post going on about you at the link below: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Cbrown1023 02:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
I've blocked you for 24 hours per consensus at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents that your edits at User talk:StuRat were unacceptable. This block is not intended to punish, but to prevent future abuse by showing that the community doesn't accept it. Bishonen | talk 09:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Okay, but just so you know, Bishonen, that's the exact definition of punishment. I prefer that people were up-front with me about such things. -THB 12:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Really, what Bishonen says above is that he's enforcing a "cooling off" block - not a punitive measure. M a rtinp23 13:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, that's not what she said. She said she's blocking me but it is "not intended to punish, but to prevent future abuse by showing that the community doesn't accept it."  Please don't change the meaning of another's comments to suit your point of view, or at least have the courtesy not to do so on my talkpage.  I was blocked something like seven hours after I was a bad boy, so it wasn't a cooling off period.  There was no hot-headedness that needed cooling in the first place. Thanks. -THB 13:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * While a block may have punitive effects, the motive is prevention. A cooling off block is one way to describe the motive of this block, but I would word it differently. I would say you are blocked so as to be made to know that certain behavior will result in blocks in the future, so as to prevent such behavior. Prevention, not punishment. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus
Hey, StuRat, if you happen to see this, note that per Bishonen (above), consensus consists of seven editors administrators agreeing on something (with no dissent), in this case in about a seven- or eight-hour period. -THB 13:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, issues involving disruptive editors are almost always resolved more quickly than complex content disputes. Friday (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you care to define the term 'disruptive' on my talk page Friday?--Light current 23:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This is bizarre
Is this a serious question? It seems rather astoundingly weird and childlike to me. And the edit summary is very misleading. Did you do this on purpose? Ned Wilbury 20:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * WTF ????????????????????????????????????????????????? -THB 20:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand your response. If you don't mind me asking, how old are you? Ned Wilbury 20:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it wasn't meant to be personal, so nevermind. I was just trying to figure out what was going on.  Ned Wilbury 20:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * THB Ive asked Ned to cool off the 'Spanish inquisition' on your edits. I know youre feeling rather upset right now because I have felt the same way after my blocks. But believe me, continuing to fight and expose yourself to further threats of blocking is not really the thing to be doing ATM. THe best thing, if you feel you cannot have a small Wikibreak is to try to contribute to WP to the best of your professional and personal ability to show people that you really are a worthwhile person. We cant afford to lose you to another block anyway! Cheers and Merry Xmas!--Light current 21:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but his comments are bizarre to say the least and I don't like him asking about personal things, look what happened to hippocrite with all of the stalkers threatening him with slitting his throat and apparently they know where he lives. It's creepy. -THB 21:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * NO honestly THB I thikn you are misinterpreting Neds questions. Ned is known to me as a good Wikipedian and Admin. Hes not threatening you or stalking you: he was just abit confused by your grasshopper Q thats all. I would forget all about it! 8-)--Light current 21:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well why the hell is he accusing me about the edit summary and stalking me? I didn't even make one. He should know how that workds if he's an admin. or even an experienced editor.  And wny is he keeping track of it?  It's freakin' creepy.  He has no need to know my age. -THB 21:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The edit summary bit is obvious. You (THB) didn't use an edit summary for the edit in question, and what was used by the auto-filling thingy was the title of the section you were posting to. Ned should have realised this, but to avoid this in future, you (THB) should (a) always use an edit summary (seriously) and (b) when posting a new question use the '+' thing or the link at the top of the ref desk, not by editing the last section. Light current's advice is good, I hope you will take it. Best wishes. Carcharoth 01:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah THB, I think this is all a terrible mistake on Neds part. But he is not to blame. He was confused by your edit summary thats all. Please believe me when I say Neds not against you in any way! He is maybe suspicious of your edits thinking you are a newbie or troll or something. But if you continue to edit in your noraml way, you will allay his fears on that aspect. I should try to think no more about it. I am watching out for you! 8-)--Light current 02:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome
Just to let you know that your welcome to 83.5.227.70 didn't stick. --hydnjo talk 21:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, i put the e in. -THB 21:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Vote stacking
Please desist from campaigning and vote stacking in the future.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  23:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is one not allowed to campaign? Admins rally support from others all the time!--Light current 23:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not allowed because it's disruptive to consensus building. A relevant page is WP:SPAM. But please do provide evidence for your unsubstantiated allegation.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  00:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't make unfounded accusations against me and please do not use my talk page as your personal chat board. -THB 12:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Radiant is right, we do not campaign here, consensus should form naturally. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Assuming people happen across the page in Question.--Light current 17:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the difference between 'vote stackin' (a term I only came across recently) and merely informing editors (who may or may not be in favor) of a particular discussion. I mean, is the latter allowed--Light current 19:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI
I've deleted Hipocrite's "analysis" and your response from Friday's talk page and left a warning about such posts on Hipocrite's talk page. I understand you were only responding in kind, but I ask you to please refrain from fanning flames about this situation. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment not deleted in error
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk, and several of the following sections. I invite you to participate in the discussion rather than continuing an extended edit war. -- SCZenz 03:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Last sentence of Intro
Hi THB, would you care to render an opinion on the POV debate in the Telepathy article here? another opinion would be helpfull.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks (:  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your thanks on User:Friday/Recall Petition
Hopefully some good will come of the petition, perhaps some concerns have been raised, and if all parties can work together better in future it will have been worth the effort. Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 13:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

NUrsing COTM for Jan
Hi, Should we change the nursing COTM for Jan? If so any suggestions for which article?&mdash; Rod talk 17:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Change of heart
I'm pleased to see your remarkable change of heart and new welcoming attitude toward Hipocrite:. It's such a refreshing change after the disagreements of just four days ago.

Still – given your past history of disagreements – it might be best to give him a bit of space, lest it seem that you're poking at some very tender, very recent wounds, eh? It would be terrible indeed if your extraordinarily friendly gesture were misunderstood. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure she would have no difficulty expressing these things herself if that's the way she feels. However, I fail to see how she could possibly misinterpret such a straight-forward, unambiguous message.  I even included a plate of cookies! -THB 04:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah but that message (aprt from the cookies) is for a completely new user 8-?--Light current 04:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I hoped that with the new year she could be sweet but no, she deleted my message. It actually said welcome back.  I guess in a way she never left as she is posting while on a long wikibreak. -THB 04:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah well, some people still post even when they say they've left. Anyway how do you know it a she?--Light current 04:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC) 8-)


 * Let me rephrase my message in plainer terms. Don't snap your fingers under the nose of an editor with whom you're in a dispute.  It's unseemly and it's childish, and it's the sort of behaviour that is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia.  Please don't insult us both by replying with a disingenuous remark.  If you have something sincere to say here, however, it would be welcomed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont see this plate of cookies as a finger snap, more of a ginger snap! 8-)--Light current 04:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * WTF????? I just noticed this now. Snap! Snap! -THB 20:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A request for assistance
Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 05:02 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Discussion from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/StuRat 2
This is off-topic on the StuRat RFC, so I'm replying here. I'm not here to hand out punishments, but even if I was - Hipocrite is a seperate editor from StuRat. What would one have to do with the other? Friday (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Two way street?
Replying to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/StuRat 2 here since it's off-topic for the StuRat RFC. Who says it's not a two-way street? I expect all editors to follow basic etiquette. The fact remains, in the example given, it's poor form to just revert without comment when there's already talk page discussion in favor of the original edit. Maybe I was unclear? I don't get how there's really room for disagreement over this. Friday (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this helpful?
Does this edit improve the reference desk in your opinion? I thought you were opposed to meta-comment on the ref desk pages. Friday (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The question asked by the questioner specifically related to the answer I gave. Ordinarily such a comment should be on the talk page.  Please feel free to move the *entire question* to the talk page.


 * BTW, is "Is this helpful?" a way of saying "I don't think this is helpful."? Maybe you should think about the question and why it's being asked. I have realized that the RD Administrator Deletionist Guild is in the minority in their dictatorial attitude and actions. -THB 20:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, the last three posts on my talk page are by you, User:Friday. Why are you riding my ass instead of StuRat's now?  I certainly hope that I don't become the whipping boy. -THB 20:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you understand that you've made polite discussion more difficult with this kind of response? Inventing some "RD Adminstrator Deletionist Guild" doesn't help us understand each other.  This polarizing technique of lumping imagined opponents together was a big reason behind Requests for comment/StuRat 2, if you recall.  Friday (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Your editing speaks for itself. You are waving the red flag to what you perceive are the bulls. Then wonder why you get flack? Why are you trying to escalate the discussion to a war? David D. (Talk) 22:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and I think that the RFC proves that StuRat is correct. I tried not to see it that way before, but because of the repeated attacks, and the administrators' tolerance of rude assholes attacking the RD inclusionists, my mind has been changed. I only observe. BTW, that's #4.-THB 21:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

In case that wasn't clear, I now believe that a lump of administrators attacking someone for lumping together the administrators who are attacking them is a lump of attacking administrators. In this case they don't like to admit what they're doing or are unable to see it. Sort of a vicious cycle. -THB 21:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Care in describing colleagues
Hi THB. I couldn't help but note your helpful reminder at the top of this page. With that in mind, would you please consider refraining to use the word sycophant to describe fellow editors. The implication that they are toadying to administrators, rather than forming their own considered opinion, is your interpretation of their motives - and not a very favorable one at that. It's a comment on a contributor, it's attribution by association and is not constructive to the debate. I hope, on reflection, you'll give others the consideration you ask to be afforded yourself. Thank you. Rockpock e  t  08:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I calls'em like I sees'em. And it's not an implication, it's an open accusation. I also note that you're another one of the lump of administrators. I can see how that might be offensive to you, so you should look at changing the behavior of the sycophants. -THB 11:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * On TenOfAllTrades page i wrote:
 * "Show me where I have been working with Friday, TenOfAllTrades, hipocrite and Rockpocket to suppress the creativity of other innocent users in wikipedia. Otherwise, I can only asume you are being intentionally disruptive with a goal to antagonise the situation further. Whether this is wilfully or you're just naive i do not know."
 * Now I see you are not naive at all and just intentionally disruptive. Why can't you understand that there are many independant editors that disagree with your actions here? More to the point, you must know that you are trying to bait people into blocking you. Playing the persecution card will never help your cause here. Didn't you see what a good job Steve Summit and Light current were doing trying to win people over? Why can't you join with them in a more productive defense of your position rather than sniping from the sidelines? David D. (Talk) 13:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Just want to say, I agree with what people are saying above. We expect all editors to be able to cooperate with each other. When people ask you to tone it down, don't just repeat your inflammatory words. Ned Wilbury 16:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ned, fancy seeing you around again. Thanks for your kind words--fascinating how you pop up when the discussion is regarding sycophants. Dave, why in the world would you think I'm naive? Do you even know what my position is?  What is your position? -THB 23:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Benefit of doubt, what else? Are you really going to give me some argument from authority? LOL, I'm all ears. David D. (Talk) 23:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are all ears I would visit the doctor immediately. You know we cannot give advice on your ears ere.!


 * You are absolutely not making sense. Why would you think I'm going to argue with you at all?  Why are you bothering me by posting aggravating remarks on my talk page?  Do you think your comments are helpful?  Have I ever done anything to you?  I don't remember anything, please let me know if I have done something to you.  I don't even recall looking at your user page. -THB 23:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely you're confusing me with someone who accused you of stifling creativity (from innocent people). BTW, do you consider it okay to suppress the creativity of guilty people?  Who's guilty?  Isn't that polarizing? -THB 23:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey if you go around flinging dirt....never mind this is falling on deaf ears. I thought you were going to tell me your position? With regard to your innocence this "what me?" attitude is pretty funny. So asute when you wish to be, yet so oblivious when it is convenient. David D. (Talk) 23:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * THB, when your editing behavior causes concern in other editors, they will of course bring up the subject on your talk page. What else would you have them do?  This is a collaborative project- cries of "leave me alone" don't fly here.  Ned Wilbury 23:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ned please stop harrassing THB Thanks!--Light current 23:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I really do find the previous posts quite offensive (even to me) so I would ask you both to stop hounding THB. Thanks.--Light current 00:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you explain what you find offensive about the posts? I don't see anything except several users taking their time to patiently explaining why personal attacks are unproductive to resolving conflicts here.  -- SCZenz 00:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In my judgement they are offensive 8-(--Light current 00:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

\
 * When you make a judgement, it seems fair to ask you to give the reasoning behind it. -- SCZenz 00:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? No one else bothers.(esp ....) 8-)--Light current 01:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh for Christ's sake, now there's SCZenz, too. Where's the rest of the Gang? -THB 00:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dont worry, I am assured its not an 'us and them' confrontation. I also believe in fairies!--Light current 00:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are engineering it to appear that way. If you say it enough then it must be so. Classic creationist tactic, and it works great. Its a shame you seem to want it to slide like this. David D. (Talk) 00:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, L c, that's good for a chuckle. -THB 00:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(edcon)


 * Ya gotta keep laughing, dont you?--Light current 00:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have a substantive objection to my participation or the specifics of my comment, or is it just insinuation? -- SCZenz 00:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like insulation to me!! 8-))--Light current 00:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Asbestos I can tell, it is. -THB 00:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)



Actually, it is a bit like a chat room (well talk room) while you carry on with the WP:POINT stuff. By the way what position are you? David D. (Talk) 00:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Further to the original point
I'm afraid you don't get to "call'em like you sees'em" when those calls are accusations leveled at others, based on nothing more then your personal interpretation of their motives. Sycophant is a derogatory term. Do not use derogatory terms to describe the motives of other editors. You may consider this a warning that, should such name-calling continue, you risk action being taken for disruption per WP:NPA (especially in light of the suspiciously WP:POINT like editing of late). As for your cabalist theory, remember, if enough people act independently towards the same goal, the end result is indistinguishable from a conspiracy. Thank you. Rockpock e  t  05:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I want some of what you're smoking. -THB 01:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm so deep in the cabal, apparently, that their mind-control rays prevent me from even knowing it. Regardless, I too saw your use of the word "sycophant" and wanted to have a friendly interaction with you about it. I don't think we've ever crossed swords before (barring that one time we were in the queue together to see Annabel Chong, I mean) so is possible that I not get lumped in with everyone else? - brenneman  02:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea who you are or why you are leaving your scent on my talk page. You will have to decide for yourself whether or not you are a sycophant; as I do not know you, have not interacted with you, and have not written anything to or about you before this I cannot help you determine this. THB 03:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Commercial links
Please don't put commercial links into the Ceramics (art) article, the page has quite enough problems as it is. Have a look at External_links which will explain why I deleted your link. Regards, Nick. Nick 12:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my user page. Oh dear, I owe you an apology, sorry about all of this. For the record, to anyone reading this I'd like to make it clear that user THB did not deliberately post a commercial link in the article in question. Regards, Nick. Nick 13:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Boxes
Hi, THB: I think your comments in the boxes are funny, but the way you are using them could be considered trolling or disrupting WP to make a point. Any chance you could go back to the usual mode of editing? (Without boxes)? Anchoress 00:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I just think they're cool. At least I sign my comments, whoever's sticking the other boxed comments in isn't.  I assure you I'm not trolling. The comments weren't MEANT to be funny, I was just answering questions. -THB 00:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Its called WP:POINT. They do look kind of cool but you know it's counter productive. Fan those flames. David D. (Talk) 00:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah its a good point, but now youve made it! 8-)--Light current 00:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I did? Time will tell. David D. (Talk) 00:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

But to answer your question yes, but for you, and you alone, Anchoress. -THB 00:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers! :-)) Anchoress 00:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Take care how you respond, please
I realize it's only a joke, but this sort of thing is not a good way to respond. The question was ridiculous conspiracy-mongering- we don't want to encourage this by giving a flippant response. Friday (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ride someone else's ass, please. -THB 22:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey THB careful what you are advising. I ve got enough on my back already! 8-)--Light current 03:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

God she's such a ball-buster. THB 03:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Are those strap on things painful?--Light current 03:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, take my word for it. There are people I've never even heard of showing up to  harass me, objecting to ????? god only knows what. thb 03:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Light current, when was the last time you got blocked, and for what? Calling somebody a freakin' freshman??? t h b 03:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I honestly cant remember! 8-)--Light current 03:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, can't you click on something and find out when it was? There's some kind of record for that somewhere. Or you don't remember why you got blocked? Who did it? t h b 03:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry didnt think you were serious. It was Friday who blocked me last for 'namecalling' about 24 hrs ago 8-)--Light current 03:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

How did I miss that one??? Funny, you get blocked for that, but no none else does. What ever happened to "sticks and stones"?????? t h b 04:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Light current, I think she must have a crush on you. t h b 04:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah but how do know its a woman? By her soft words?--Light current 04:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you know she's not? Somebody said something one time, I don't remember. It's really irrelevant, I guess. If a guy acted like that he would be an asshole, if a female acts like that, she's a ball-buster, why different parts? <font style="color: #e5e4e2; background: #66023C; font-family: sans-serif; padding: .1em .25em .75em .25em;">t h b 04:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you just testing out your new sig BTW?--Light current 04:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you notice it? I want to make it flash, but do you think that would be tacky? <font style="color: #e5e4e2; background: #66023C; font-family: sans-serif; padding: .1em .25em .75em .25em;">t h b 04:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A bit blocky. Maybe not quite what you wanted right now? 8-)--Light current 05:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * THis looks better to me <font style="color: #e5e4e2; background: #66023C; font-family: sans-serif; padding: Well its a.1em .25em .75em .25em;">t h b  --Light current 05:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
I'm blocking you for 72 hours. I have this page on my watchlist because I commenting here hoping that you might be able to have some dialog with someone you saw as "uninvolved." Your demeaning "putting my scent" response I ignored, you're allowed to wave me away. However, I will not ignore the contributions above. - brenneman  04:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you supposed to use one of those little red stop signs??? <font style="color: #e5e4e2; background: #66023C; font-family: sans-serif; padding: .1em .25em .75em .25em;">t h b 04:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * THB. You have been warned often enough, this has got to stop. Do not refer to other editors as being a "ball-buster" and/or "asshole". Any further personal attacks will result in action for disruption. Consider this a final warning. Rockpock  e  t  04:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC) It appears another administrator has tired of this before I.  Rockpock  e  t  04:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Too late!!! <font style="color: #e5e4e2; background: #66023C; font-family: sans-serif; padding: .1em .25em .75em .25em;">t h b 04:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, since you posted it under their remark and indented it, you knew before you posted, didn't you??? <font style="color: #e5e4e2; background: #66023C; font-family: sans-serif; padding: .1em .25em .75em .25em;">t h b 04:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't. I guess the cabal hive mind is temporarily off-line. It was an edit conflict and the indent was to distinguish it from Light current's previous post.  Rockpock  e  t  05:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you I was talking to the other one. <font style="color: #e5e4e2; background: #66023C; font-family: sans-serif; padding: .1em .25em .75em .25em;">t h b 04:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Multiple warnings my ass. That's a lie. <font style="color: #e5e4e2; background: #66023C; font-family: sans-serif; padding: .1em .25em .75em .25em;">t h b 04:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oooo! Im not going to ask! 8-)--Light current 04:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Friday
Please stop blocking Light current. He's not disruptive of the encyclopaedia. It's not a game. <font style="color: #e5e4e2; background: #66023C; font-family: sans-serif; padding: .1em .25em .75em .25em;">t h b 04:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OTC Its all a game and the Admins always have the winning hand. Cest la vie! 8-(--Light current 04:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

For the reason he put "multiple warnings" about civility. I never heard of him until they told him to come to my home page and harass me. LOL. <font style="color: #e5e4e2; background: #66023C; font-family: sans-serif; padding: .1em .25em .75em .25em;">t h b 04:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)