User talk:TenOfAllTrades/archive08

This page is an archive of talk page comments for the months of March through May 2006.

'''Please add any new comments to my current talk page at User talk:TenOfAllTrades. Thanks!'''

Polyethylene terephthalate structure
Hi Ten, I saw the structure you made and noticed the bond angles were er... unconventional! The substituents on the benzene ring should have 120° bond angles (as all the carbon atoms in benzene are sp² hybridized). I've re-drawn your structure in ChemDraw and uploaded it as PET.png. Your original is still there, but I've replaced its thumbnail in the PET article with my version. I hope this is OK with you. Let me know if not.

Cheers Ben 02:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Invitation
Please weigh in on this proposal and see User:Leifern/Wikiproject health controversies. Thanks in advance, and feel free to spread the word. --Leifern 17:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration request template
Why did you add back in the annoying horizontal rule part of the Arbitration request template after I again removed it?

James F. (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Vaughan Councillors

 * Regarding the WP:Prod's that you got rid of across the board for hte City of Vaughan Councillors, we had previously agreed to delete the articles and put them all into one "Vaughan Council" article. If deleting isn't hte proper way to do it, what process should we be going for? pm_shef 23:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Cameronian moving his pages
Thanks for reverting changes Cameronian made on his user pages. The user has been involved in a strange and distracting behavior wherein he seems to be trying to mediate in complaints a new user had on her work being revereted by several editors but took sides in a dispute he had little knowledge of. He had been listed briefly on the member advocate committee and the mediation cabal before leaving wikipedia. If he really left it makes no sense that he is busy archiving and moving pages. His return and movement of his user pages makes me think his account was being used to manipulate others and he is now trying to cover his tracks by confusing the links with redirects and such. Odd how he has been involved in pages with Ombudsman and the anon at xxx.xxx.xxx.219 (aka The Invis. Anon). Kd4ttc 22:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm keeping an eye on it. He seems to just be interested in leaving Wikipedia, but is unfamiliar with the way to go about it. I don't believe he's trying to 'cover his tracks', I think he's just not sure how to indicate that he's left. As far as I know, there's no evidence of sockpuppetry.  He changed usernames once (from User:Mikeroberts to User:Cameronian) with the knowledge of a Wikipedia bureaucrat, so there's nothing to raise red flags there.  I'll just undo any errors he makes and leave it at that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reversion!
Thanks for the reversion of spam links on my talk page. I just figured I was supposed to leave stuff there (and look at it)....good old learning curve! Panchitaville 03:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

User talk page
Why was Roblefko's edit to my talk page reverted? SushiGeek 03:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I understand. SushiGeek 04:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Roblefko
Ah, I understand now. SushiGeek 04:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Awrigh01
I'd like to keep this user's comments on my talk page, if you wouldn't mind. I keep all comments by any and all users, and though it may be (or is) linkspam, you could just remove the link, right?

Another question: Do you think that the linkspam was to increase his Alexa ranking or something like that? Thanks, — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 04:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Apology
I was formerly Awrigh01 until blocked. Wasn't trying to manipulate our Alexa ranks or Google PageRank. We just wanted to spread the word about some cool extensions we added to Mediawiki. If I (or one of my friends) offended, I deeply apologize. We thought that fellow Wikipedians would be interested in our technology. We are just trying to extend Wikipedia's amazing technology. Is there any place where we can spread the word to fellow Wikipedians without offending? We have all contributed to the wiki in the past (albeit anonymously), hence how we learned of this powerful system and its ability to create amazing communities. --Awright38 05:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it looks very bad when a number of editors simultaneously create accounts that are used solely for promoting an external website. While it's great that you guys have established another Mediawiki-based site and I wish you the best of luck, it isn't acceptable to edit Wikipedia just to plug your own site.


 * If you contribute to Wikipedia articles under a username for a reasonable period of time, you can build up some goodwill with the community here. We tend to be a lot more tolerant of editors who have taken the time to build articles and build a reputation.


 * With a solid track record of Wikipedia contributions behind you, you might consider creating a link in your own user space back to your site; the most overt promotion that you could get away with would be a reference in your signature like this:
 * TenOfAllTrades Visit a neat encyclopedia project! 06:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * (If you follow the link above, it shows how you could plug your site on your own user page.) I'll lift the block on your account–pick one and only one to edit from from now on–but you'll end up blocked again if your Wikipedia contributions don't serve to improve the encyclopedia. Note that the web site in question is probably going to remain on the Wikipedia blacklist for a while; you won't be able to directly link to it from any Wikipedia page.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree it looks very bad. I have a couple of accounts, and just used Awrigh01 to plug my own site  Is there a way for us to petition to remove the site from the SpamBlackList.  Since, we did not plug our site to improve our search engine rankings and we did not use a bot to post these messages, as described in Wikipedia's definition of spam Spam.  Any help would be appreciated.  I am sure the other Wikipedians appreciate your vigilance, I know I do. --Awrigh01 19:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC) 19:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A word of advice&mdash;while it is permissible to create extra Wikipedia accounts to perform different tasks, it is definitely frowned upon to create new accounts solely for the purpose of doing things that aren't in line with Wikipedia policy. Such sockpuppets will be banned, and may result in sanctions applied to the parent account as well.
 * Your best strategy is to contribute to Wikipedia using one–and only one–account. If your account makes a lot of good edits, then that account will accrue some goodwill that will tend to help you out if you screw up.  The Awrigh01 account got blocked–quickly–because it was seen as a spam-only account with no useful contributions to Wikipedia.  Similarly, the other accounts that were used for promotion-only got blocked; it also didn't help that they appeared to be sockpuppets of a single person because they were being used to post the same message for the same purpose.
 * The spam blacklist is managed through meta (http://meta.wikipedia.org). It's a sort of umbrella wiki that manages the 'big' things that affect all the language-specific Wikipedias.  To get your site off of the spam blacklist, you will have to explain the situation to an admin on meta.  If you ask nicely and promise not to send out bulk spam messages again, you might be able to get un-blacklisted.  It would help if you identify your 'good' account(s) to show that you are a productive and useful wiki-citizen.  User:Essjay here on en.wikipedia is an admin here and on meta; you might discuss the matter with him.   TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page. Cheers. --djrobgordon 04:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Me too. --BradPatrick 04:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Me three! shaggy 04:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Fore! &mdash;Twigboy 15:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Even though I didn't mind that "sportswiki-spam" thing on my talk page, thank you for devoting your time to remove the spam from my (and apparently hundreds of others') talk page. :-) --EdGl 20:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't remove content from my talk page!
There's policies against that. If you want it removed, contact me, and we'll discuss it. Nfitz 05:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the link to the sports wiki from your talk page because the editor(s) who placed the notice had placed similar notices on at least three hundred other talk pages; they were engaged in an inappropriate advertising campaign. If you found the notice useful, you're welcome to retain it on your talk page.

Please try not to jump to accusing other editors of vandalism without discussing the matter first. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC

I didn't accuse you of anything. I simply asked that you follow policy and not delete comments from my talk page. That if for me to do, not you. Nfitz 05:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

While I really don't think the matter is worth arguing over, you did accuse me of vandalism in your edit summary: Revert vandalism by TenOfAllTrades. Just try to keep in mind that other people can and do read the edit summaries that you leave behind. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't so much an accusation as a statement of fact. Vandalism clearly states that "Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism." An exception is provided for removing personal attacks; however there is no exception provided for removal of vandalism (presuming that the vandalism is not a personal attack) or spam. That is the pregorative and responsibility of the User. Nfitz 05:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, it's really not worth arguing over. There was a discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard about the editors' behaviour; several admins concurred that the postings were inappropriate.  In general, such bulk postings are removed as a matter of course.  Where an editor had replied on his own talk page to the messages, I did make an effort to preserve a link to the information for that editor.
 * While we generally are concerned more about the spirit of our rules than their letter, the part of Vandalism you'll want to refer to is Spam, listed second on the list of types of vandalism. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

And yet you persist in arguing about it! And yes, spam is discussed there as part of vandalism. However, as I noted above, the removal of vandalism is not actually mandated in that page ... just the removal of abuse. I was quite clear on that. And given that I have contributed to Administrators' noticeboard before you posted this, I am aware of it! And I note, that others thought an outright infinite ban of the users, without a single warning, was going a little far. Perhaps this is best discussed there though. Nfitz 14:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * *sigh* The thing is, the removal of spam is mandated by the vandalism policy&mdash;see Vandalism, which instructs "If you see vandalism (as defined below), revert it."
 * The addition of the linkspam to hundreds of pages was the act of vandalism that I was undoing. Even though it appeared on user talk pages, it doesn't get a free pass.  You can see why it would be a Bad Thing to permit editors to spam talk pages with impunity.  If you were following the discussion on WP:AN/I, then you were also aware that there was general agreement that the spamming was inappropriate, and there was no objection to reverting it as vandalism.


 * With respect to the blocks I placed, you'll note that they were indefinite, which is not the same as infinite. It was reasonable to have the blocks last  until the website in question went on the spam blacklist, and the editors in question understood what was inappropriate about their behaviour.  The accounts had been used solely for spamming; there wasn't a plausible argument to be made that valuable edits were being lost.  Since I didn't know how long it would take until those conditions would be fulfilled, I placed an indefinite block and monitored the situation.
 * I released the blocks that I placed as soon as the two conditions I listed above were met. You'll note that I indicated I would do this in my postings to WP:AN/I on the subject.  I've even provided Awrigh01 and Roblesko with instructions on how they might promote their site without running into further trouble here.


 * I'm trying to keep linkspam out of the encyclopedia, I'm trying to keep things running smoothly here, I've bent over backward to give these guys a chance to try to contribute without doing harm, and all of my actions have been in line with both the letter (important to wikilawyers) and the spirit (actually important) of policy. And yer still bustin' my chops.  Whaddya want from me? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Valid point about the indefinite versus infinite ban. If the advertising was on the Encylopedia portions of Wikipedia, I would agree with you.  But I think on individual's talk pages, one should be restricted to making a comment following the spam, noting that it is spam, and recommending that the user remove it.  Hey, I'm against spam and junk-mail too, but if I followed the local guy who distributes fliers up and down the street, removing his little bags from the doorsteps without consulting with people, I think that it would create problems! I appreciate the effort in the spam busting, but I think the cleansing program was a step too far Nfitz 17:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. There are two substantive differences between delivering admail to your doorstep and spamming on Wikipedia. For one, the resources being used to deliver the spam on Wikipedia are those of the Wikimedia Foundation. It's as if the guy delivering admail made you pay for the paper, ink, printing, and delivery. (While we often let our contributing editors plug their own personal projects in moderation and in their own user space, there's at least a sort of quid pro quo—a modest amount of promotion is permitted in exchange for their valuable contributions to the project.) These guys were promoting their website using Wikipedia's servers and bandwidth, and (apparently) giving nothing back to the community.

The second difference is that the guy delivering admail to your door doesn't affect search engines. By creating many links to an external site from the high-traffic, high-impact Wikipedia, a website owner can inflate his ranking on the major search engines and drive extra traffic to his site. This is the reason why the links were removed from (most of) the user pages where they appeared; hundreds of links from Wikipedia could serve to manipulate search engine results.

While I suspect that the editors in question here meant no harm and simply failed to think through all the possible consequences of their actions, it is the usual practice to remove the links to discourage other, less ethical individuals from trying to take advantage. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so much concerned about the disabling/removal of the link. I'm concerned that an entire block of text was removed from the page. Had it been placed by a bot, I might think otherwise. But that doesn't appear to be the case. Nfitz 20:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't remove content from my talk page again, please. I'm quite capable of doing it myself, if I want to, which I don't. Thanks. Varitek 17:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why on Earth did you remove something from my talk page? You had no right to do that without consulting me.Fableheroesguild 01:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about scolding you. Didn't really read the entire thing until afterwards and didn't realize it was spam. (I even responded in thanks to the guy!!!) But still, please ask before you remove from my talk page. Fableheroesguild 01:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I need to ask you something
Why did you remove the links? I am just wondering?--Slipknot 2  22  21:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

O I C. Could you remove the other link that Robeflk left on about sports, thanks!--Slipknot  2  22  21:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Markups
Thank you for salvaging this useful tool from the hands of the beasts. Of course it's got to be rewritten to be useful in userspace -- and the helpbox is broken, too. Do you want to do anything with it, with or without my help? &mdash; Xiong&#29066; talk* 10:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't really have an urge to do anything with it; you're welcome to have at them though. I see you've already found the saved copy of Helpbox.


 * If you're going to come back, don't be a dick about it, or you'll find yourself on the short end of a personal attack block. Contribute positively or not at all.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your response... I left a follow-up on the research page. Lokiloki 05:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tags
Hi. Over at t:LF you wrote that the arbcomm had ruled that single users repeatedly adding tags was bad. You wouldn't remember where that occurred, would you? (reply here, SVP) William M. Connolley 15:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm. I've got a lot on my plate over the next few days, so I'm afraid I haven't the time to do the serious digging that this question may require.  There certainly was the case of CheeseDreams, but she was sanctioned for adding tags to multiple articles; I also thought that there was something more recent.  I'll see if I can turn up something more directly on point.
 * It also would fall under general edit warring; repeated reversion of any change over the course of a long period of time is asking for a disruption block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 18:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Save "List of school pranks" From Deletion
Hi, the article List of school pranks has been targeted by the Wikipedia Thought Police&trade;. Please help preserve this marvellous testament to human inventiveness&mdash;and cruelty&mdash;from certain extinction by voting Keep at the article's deletion page if you haven't already done so. May algid reason never reign supreme! Thanks, Maikel 15:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC) PS:  This is a generic message that has been hand-posted to you as a former contributor&mdash;hope you don't mind.

Comment from Ragib
Hi, I don't really want to continue looking into any more of Dunc's articles, but frankly, if you know him from previous interactions, would you please request him not to do a admin-revert on any tag he disagrees? He has created a lot of spurious forks on children/wives/brothers of famous people, and it can be expected that some editor at any time will raise questions regarding their notability. Is it civil to abruptly revert rather than comment on that and perhaps provide notability justifications? I'm personally not going to get into further conflict with him, but please apply the same standards to him as well. In case you didn't notice, as a retaliation, he also tagged Azam Khan (singer), looking into my contribution tree, with a notability tag. I feel that wheel warring is lame, and won't get into that by reverting his tag, but in any case, if you know Dunc, request him to at least comment in the talk page in such cases.

Thanks

--Ragib 23:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

“Medicine” on MCOTW
After a bit of inactivity, Medicine has been selected as the new medicine collaboration of the week. I am taking the unusual step of informing all participants, not just those who voted for it, since I feel that it is important that this highest-level topic for our collaboration be extremely well-written. In addition, it is a core topic for Wikipedia 1.0 and serves as the introduction to our other articles. Yet general articles are the ones that are most difficult for individuals to write, which is why I have invited all participants. I hope it isn't an intrusion; I don't make plan to make a habit of sending out these messages. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Private Messaging & Antaeus
Hello, as you know, I've been seeking an answer for Anteaus regarding his [online writing]. I understand that the questions are not related to wikibuilding, but they are related to someone who makes many wikipedia changes, often without justifying his changes. Had Anteaus given me a reason, even via eMail (he could have requested an eMail address is he was embarrassed to answer the question online), I would have been satisfied. Even if I could have sent him a private message, that would have also worked. But to my understanding these discussion pages are the only form of contact that members have between one-another. Furthermore, Anteaus said he would have answered the question if it were serious. Upon clearifying that it WAS a serious question, he instead just decided to repeatedly remove the comments.

Even private messaging I feel would be insufficent though, to be completely honest. After all, if you're going to be able to read information on a subject online, shouldn't you also be able to know who you're getting that information from? I'm sure many of the sensative groups that Anteaus covers would not be happy with some of his comments about them, but he has every right to make them, as that information is public knowledge and Anteaus has freedom of speech. The same can be said, however, about me commenting on HIS pages. I know that many conservative readers will not take seriously materials written by someone who has authored [certain types of] stories (regardless of how respectable those stories are). Seeing as the stories themselves can be easily found via Google, I don't know why they should not be shared here, especially since they are very much related to a common Wikipedia editor: Anteaus himself.

I understand if you feel my questions to him come off as harrassment, and I truely wish that the message has not gotten lost in the finger-pointing. I hope though that you can understand my perspective as both an honest inquirer (wikipedia is here to answer questions, right?) and someone who wants to contribute data, not just to wikipedia articles, but also the authors of those articles, because a book is only as good as it's author. Leave it to the reader to decide whether of not the author is a good one.

Please feel free to contact me personally about this issue, but I would appriciate you not "warning" me without understanding both viewpoints. I'm sure as an admin you do your duty of being as objective as possible, and I hope you continue upholding that standard. Thank you. --192.104.181.229 16:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have redacted references to the details of Antaeus' past writings outside of Wikipedia, because those details are not relevant to our discussion. If you feel that I haven't retained the sense of your comments, feel free to modify my edits, but do not restore the content that was removed.
 * Wikipedia is about its articles and not about its editors. While we do have articles about a small number of our editors (Jimmy Wales comes to mind as the most notable), I'm afraid that most of us just aren't encyclopedia-worthy.  Our user pages are not articles about us; they are not bound by Wikipedia's policies on verifiability or neutral point of view.  Our user pages are decorations for our online cubicles&mdash;favourite photographs and quotations, useful links, the odd important memo.  In most cases, our editors are free to disclose and discuss as much or as little about themselves as they see fit.  There is a great deal of respect for the independence and privacy of our editors.
 * We don't judge our editors by the roles they play outside of Wikipedia; rather, we evaluate editors based on the quality of their contributions to this encyclopedia. We expect that substantial contributions falling outside the scope of 'common knowledge' will be appropriately referenced.  Citation of appropriate outside sources is what ultimately safeguards the quality of our articles.
 * The exception to that rule of thumb is quite narrow. It may be appropriate to discuss an editor's non-Wikipedia activities where those activities may generate a genuine conflict of interest.  If an editor were writing about himself, for example, that would be cause for concern and discouraged.  (Even then, the addition of properly-referenced material may be accepted.)  In the case of Antaeus, I have difficulty seeing where his past online writing would signal a conflict of interest with any of his recent Wikipedia contributions.  Is there such a conflict that I missed?  If there is an overt bias in his writing here that is related to his other activities, again, discussion of those activities may be germane.
 * Otherwise, if an editor asks you not to discuss his off-wiki activities, respect that request.
 * Two other notes that you might find helpful:
 * Please consider getting a Wikipedia username; it is difficult to communicate with you when your IP keeps changing across the Muhlenberg College address space.
 * You can send email to editors using the 'E-mail this user' link on the left side of each user page (in the toolbox under the search box). Note that users are not obliged to respond, but it is possible to carry on a private discussion in this way.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me state, for the record, that I have no wish to receive any further communication from 192.104.181.229, by private e-mail or otherwise. 229/227 seems to believe that everyone except himself is pathetically stupid, and that if he suddenly switches from making belligerent accusations in a hostile, aggressive tone to asking about entirely irrelevant off-wiki activities in a syrupy, exaggeratedly "sincere" tone that it will actually fool people that the intent isn't still hostile. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That would seem pretty clear, then. I'd strongly discourage you (the user from Muhlenberg 192.104.*.*) from contacting Antaeus again on this issue.  I would recommend avoiding interacting with Antaeus altogether unless it is directly related to article discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * First, user names I have made on Wikipedia have only been smeared by Antaeus in the past, and therefore I refuse to make another just to have it become another target of his bigotry. I admit that my approaches could be considered wrong, but by the very quote on the "bigorty" page here on Wikipedia, "It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong."  Antaeus has said he would have been happy to have had civil communication about the matter, then changed his mind when he realized I was content with civil communication.  I don't appriciate the slandor that he continues to target me with, both directly and indirectly.  Just because he can't imagine my questions be sincere doesn't make then any less so, and from someone who goes about preaching how unbiased he is, this is an amazing stain on his record.  As for wikipedia being about content vs. authors: information is only as good as it's source, and while wikipedia DOES use external links, WHICH links are used and which are ommited is governed by the users.  For some reason, when a dispute occurs, people just flip-flop between their version of the "correct" revisions.  Such has been the case in almost every article I have seen Antaeus edit.  This flip-flop of the current sources is contingent only upon who got "the last word."  What use it is to have a souce without knowing where or who it came from?  An example: if I went around making an "unbiased" political website, then had a majority of the external links be unfavorable to a certain party, wouldn't that be unjust on my part?  The links I supplied may all be valid links, but it does not justify the complete unbalance that an author supplied.  What if you researched the author to discover he had been arrested for illegal political involvement?  Should the public not be allowed to know that?  I know this example seems off-topic, but I'm trying to illustrate my perspective on how KNOWING the source isn't the same as HAVING a source.  And as I told him, if he has a problem with the information being posted here, then if he would simply explain why I would remove any links.  After first agreeing to answer a sincere question, he then retracted and reversed once I clearified that it was sincere.  I think this is just as well to be public.  I personally cannot trust an author who is inconsistent, and I think it should be up to the other readers to decide whether or not to read my comments and questions directed at Antaeus, regardless of whether or not they wish to make any choices based upon that information.  I really think that if we're going to use censorship here, it shouldn't only come from Antaeus.  Other people have opinions worth just as much as his. --192.104.181.229 14:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ten, this anon (who, I think, has just admitted being a sockpuppet) has been harassing me again. -- Antaeus Feldspar


 * Antaeus has been harrassing this "sock puppet" directly and indirectly for many months now. When fair play comes into the management of this site, Antaeus will stop crying foul after kicking someone else in the shins. (And I'm still waiting on a response please Ten.  Sorry if I sound harsh here, it's not directed at you, you haven't really done anything wrong to me.) --192.104.181.229 20:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Spam email
I noticed you blocked this user for spamming. he is now spamming the identical message using the email service offered by wikipedia, SqueakBox 02:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have also received spam email from this person today Enigmatical 04:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

MfD - again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:86.10.231.219

You may have noticed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:86.10.231.219#Interaction_with_Midgley which relates to you. I see no sign of this not escalating, regardless of anything I do - examples are visible in Usenet and in the historical accounts of the anti-vaccinationist movement of the past.

Whatever ... Midgley 11:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

RFC. Troll. Remember above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/86.10.231.219 You are mentioned in it. Midgley 20:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Skool Esperanzial note
Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Cel es tianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Gracias
Thank you for your support in my recent RfA! I hope to never let my supporters down. 8)--Rockero 00:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

rfa
I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on. &rArr;  SWAT  Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  19:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

How to do RFC
Please read this and improve it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFC/How_to_present_a_case Midgley 14:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Acharya S
I happened to notice you made a nice start to improving that article, thank you. Our many trouble spots need more sensible editors like you to give them a critical eye. --Michael Snow 20:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm hoping it's just an uphill battle and not a Sisyphean task...thanks for the kind words, though. :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

192.104.181.227/192.104.181.229 back to open harassment about off-wiki activities again
192.104.181.227 has returned to harassing me about my writings outside of Wikipedia, with this edit. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Both addresses are blocked for 24 hours. If he blanks the IP talk pages again then I can sprotect them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Lou
I think you are right, but I always hope someone gets the point at some time. It does take much more for me to get frustrated. Kim van der Linde at venus 01:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Lou part 2
Yeah, you're right of course. -Smahoney 03:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:Physics Question
Great Answer Anonymous  _anonymous_  Have a Nice Day  16:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Archaya


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. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Adam Carr
Adam Carr is back from his travels, and has announced his intentions on the Cuba talk page to "resume combat" as the "Fidelistas have been busy reinserting their pathetic lies in my absence". Again this is entire and unneccessary nonsense. Would you mind keeping an eye on the situation. Thanks.--Zleitzen 14:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

When I want your advice I'll ask for it. Adam 20:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

democracy
I appreciate your statement "Of course the notion of Cuba being a democracy is a sham", though I wonder if you might consider that what you really believe is that Cuba is not a Liberal democracy? The ownership of the definition of the word democracy is a big problem. Many people simply presume that the word democracy is synonymous with the more narrow definition captured by the concept of Liberal democracy, dating to the Age of Enlightenment and John Adams. Though, indeed democracy has a much broader range of defintions, even here on Wikipedia. See Democracy (disambiguation) and perhaps you will agree that some types of democracy are at odds with the defintion you use. Indeed, wars have been fought over disagreements similar to the one we now see about who owns the definition of that word. BruceHallman 15:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

State route naming conventions
Please join the discussion at State route naming conventions poll. -- Cyde↔Weys 20:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Phenol Red
You were missing a double bond on the structure for Phenol Red so I went ahead and updated the image here. just wanted to let you know and let me know if there are any problems with it. later SirGrant 02:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Cuba
If you agree with me on the issue of substance, why don't you help me DO something about it, rather than snipe at me over how I conduct this dispute? I have debated the matter with the pro-communist editors BruceHallman and Zleitzen, but how times can I say the same thing? Adam 02:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're not prepared to get your hands dirty, I suggest you mind your own business. Adam 09:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Images
Hi, you have a response on my talk. Thanks. — Nathan (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Cuba

 * I am not an administrator.
 * I have now withdrawn from editing the Cuba articles. I can't fight the Communist Party of Wikipedia on my own. Thanks for your help, not. Adam 12:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia is only a war against Communism when the Communists are in control of certain articles and determined to defend their position, as is the case at the Cuba articles (and elsewhere - have a look at what is going on at Lenin and Stalin, although I am not involved there). In those cases it is necessary to fight them, since they see Wikipedia only as a means to their ideological ends and are not interested in the editorial process as such. They are not alone in this - the LaRouche sect is just as bad and some of the nationalists (especially the Poles) behave in the same way - but they are the best organised and most determined, as is the nature of Communist ideology. Furthermore, they back each other up, making it easier for them to win revert wars by a process of exhaustion and without breaking the 3R rule (in my view a very harmful rule because it gives these groups of ideologues a powerful weapon to defeat less ruthless opponents). That is why I am annoyed at getting no active support from people who agree that the Communist versions of such articles are bad but won't do anything to help defeat the people responsible. Adam 22:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)