User talk:Thatcher/Archive1

Butyl rubber
I have put these pages on my watchlist and will revert vandalism when I see it. It's starting to look like a really good article by the way. I think I might remove the stub tags, because it's a bit more than that now. GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You are quite correct (Prod)
Thanks for pointing that out... Prod didn't exist before I took a break from Wikipedia, this is the first time I've used it. Thanks!--Isotope23 05:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, saw what you did with my prod tags... thanks. Didn't know that is how they worked.--Isotope23 14:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

polyisobutylene
"cur) (last) 16:44, 13 February 2006 Thatcher131 (revert to remove unverified/NPOV material being added by a sockpuppet who sells the stuff as a magic fuel additive) "

I don't know if you're just being arrogant or are just stupid. I didn't repost that article so stop with your name calling and insults.

Hmm
On 13 Feb user:WhatAboutPoly reverted the article butyl rubber to a version that contained a lot of unverifiable claims about polyisobutylene being a gasoline additive that improves fuel mileage but is being surpressed by the government. I reverted it with the tag (revert to remove unverified/NPOV material being added by a sockpuppet who sells the stuff as a magic fuel additive) I guess that was not as civil as it could have been but the same content has been posted at different times by 5 different accounts (user:Qiman, user:WhatAboutPoly, 2 anonymous IP addresses, and an AOL account).

Today user:Qiman posted to my talk page, ''I don't know if you're just being arrogant or are just stupid. I didn't repost that article so stop with your name calling and insults.''

I replied on user:Qiman's talk page,
 * The article in question (butyl rubber) was reverted by user:WhatAboutPoly. Why would you, user:Qiman, take offense at my comments?  If you have any more disputes about the content of the article please leave them in the talk section of the article. Thatcher131 08:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I post this here to create a record of the comments. Thatcher131 08:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You say, "On 13 Feb user:WhatAboutPoly reverted the article butyl rubber to a version that contained a lot of unverifiable claims about polyisobutylene being a gasoline additive that improves fuel mileage but is being surpressed by the government." This is true from the history records.

You then say, "I guess that was not as civil as it could have been but the same content has been posted at different times by 5 different accounts (user:Qiman, user:WhatAboutPoly, 2 anonymous IP addresses, and an AOL account)." That is an outright lie. I never posted claims about polyisobutylene being an improver of fuel mileage being suppressed by the govt. I came upon that article, which was already posted and was there before I ever signed up for an account with wikipedia and simply posted at the bottom of that article contact information about where to get it as a fuel additive, since it seemed that whoever wrote the article didn't know that it was currently available. I'm not saying I don't believe it will increase fuel, because I certainly do believe it based on my own experience and many people I know, but the bottom line is you have to stop accusing people of doing things they didn't do. If this is your claim that I was someone who did post or repost that article, you are not a sensible person. You are not very conscious or aware of the progression/chronology of this whole pib dispute and your attention to detail sucks. If you want to pretend to be so attentive to detail, at least be consistant across the board and not half-assed about it.

Groundbreaking submarines
I thought about the French flag part for Nautilus (1800), but the designer was an American, and it was rejected by the French. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note
When you link to an IP user, you should use the prefix user: not IP:. For example: user:127.0.0.1. Also, you can quickly create a signiture for an unsigned post by using the tag. Just thought you might like to know. Happy editing! :) --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 21:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Thatcher131 00:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!
Sorry someone spanked you.

You might enjoy reading BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. This explains how a spanking actually leads to better articles. Also, Harmonious editing club has ideas about how articles get better.

Cheers,

- ikkyu2 ( talk ) 16:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hyles
Thanks for helping/researching on Hyles. Could you look up the Dave Hyles allegations (Jack Hyles Controversy)? And see if you can find anything more on AV Ballenger (as asserted in the Contro. article)? Arbustoo 21:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Marillion
Marillion without "ill" is uhmm... Marion! lol Sorry! I haven't really bothered listening to the group since Fish left to be honest - so I'll reserve judgement on their current line-up. I've not listened to Fish's solo stuff either.

Anyway - back to the article. You seem to have some clear ideas about how the encyclopedia should be written, and I'm going to trust you on that. Certainly I read some policy somewhere stating that only articles on notable singles should be given their own, separate, articles. With that in mind of course, there have been a few Marillion singles that haven't been part of any studio albums (apart from, on some occassions, compilation albums).

If you know much about the group (and I'm only going to be concentrating on the Fish era myself), I wouldn't mind your help in improving the relevant articles. Here's what I propose:


 * An article for all of Marillion's singles releases - they were quite well-known for their 12" singles, and the artwork on the covers. The problems would be that there is overlap with articles in the album articles for those singles that were album releases.... and also naming the article.  However, something which perhaps gives a separate article for singles a bit of justification is including info about the B-sides.  Having said that, the compilation album 'B-Sides Themselves' contain most, if not all, of these early B-sides.


 * Considering Marillion is notable for the cover-art collaboration of Wilkinson and Fish, I propose that thumbnail images be added to for each single in the album articles. Perhaps a smaller version of the singles template could be added to the track sections within the album articles.  Or, of course, thumbnails and info like that could be added to an article about the singles as described above.

Let me know what you think. --Mal 13:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW - I am going to do a similar thing as you have done for the article Assassing, with other articles I had created recently for Marillion singles: Punch and Judy.. Garden Party etc.. and I might try to include the thumbnails at least to see how it looks in the relevant album articles. --Mal 13:20, 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 17:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Union blockade
Thanks for your contributions to an article that has long been stagnant. Cheers, Kaisershatner 18:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:BITE
===>Agree to disagree I appreciate your concern and diplomatic tone. Your opinion is duly noted. -Justin (koavf), talk 22:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Boghossian
I agree entirely with your last comment. I will not, however, be as easily scared away by a lone ιδιωτης. --Thorsen 17:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Collé
My understanding was that the article should be wiped if there is significant copy-vio. I am not sure of this but if not certainly the section you believe is copy-vio should be wiped--Porturology 23:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

DOS.MASTER
Thanks for the supportive comments on my DOS.MASTER article (rather than discounting it right away). I want it to be a good article, and I hope I somewhat fulfilled your suggestions. --PZ 04:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Good work on Placebo, now a question
I don't know how I ended up on the Placebo article but your work was, indeed, worthy of the star you got. It has been a few years since I helped a college student research the topic but I could never find adequate information about one aspect of the placebo studies. That is: after sufficient time, all placebos lose whatever effect they ever "had." I suppose we should expect that, otherwise we could cure just about every ailment with a few breath mints. But did you stumble across any information that discussed the duration of treatment as a factor? (Yeah, I know I should do my own research, but if you know off the top of your head...) Ande B 06:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Chat about London Steverson?
Please come & chat about London Steverson on the talk page found here. I'd be interested to know if you know more about him, and perhaps open a discussion with you about where we could go with improving the article. Likewise I'd like to read your comments about the current state of Black Cadets at the Coast Guard Academy. on the talk page here. Thanks -- Argon233   T   @   C   &para;    U   &ang;   21:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages
You restored your libelous statements to my talk page so why cant I restore my conversation with Joturner to his talkpage? Nice double standard munafiq zig. Mary K. Sponze

Blanking AN/I post
Hi, Thatcher131. The point of blanking the post from banned stalker Andrew Morrow was that he doesn't get to post at all on Wikipedia. He is to be rolled back on sight. Please see http://www.nabble.com/Tracking-banned-user-Andrew-Morrow-t1129066.html. Note Jimmy Wales' post in particular. I'm going to blank it again. Best wishes, Bishonen | börk börk börk 09:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC).
 * Thanks, but I'm going to leave the other one — I mean the first one — since so many well-informed admins have taken it as an opportunity to raise awareness of the situation. The comments are by now much more important than the original post, so I wouldn't take it on me to delete the thread. And deleting Amorrow's post only would merely be confusing. The general principle is good, though. Please help thwart this creep who gets off on intimidating women, if you should catch sight of him anywhere around the place. Bishonen | börk börk börk 14:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC).

Rikki Lee Travolta
Hi, I've posted some more info at Articles for deletion/Rikki Lee Travolta which I think pretty much shows that this person is a self publicist. I'd appreciate you could consider voting as I don't think we should allow Wikipedia to be used for free advertising. Thanks Arniep 21:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * WOW! Great work on that research- I can't believe someone actually voted keep after all the evidence we now have on there?! Arniep 01:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi I posted on AN/I as if you check the contribs of all the sockpuppets that I listed at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents you'll see that the deception stretched to quite a few other articles so it was stepping into deliberate vandalism or falsification of articles other than the main one in question. Regards Arniep 01:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I forgot that capitals meant shouting sorry if you were offended. I have modified a few of your changes as the edits were all Rikki related not just general edits to Travolta articles. Regards Arniep 12:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sean Hood
Thanks for your advice regarding this article. I will definately be contributing to the Wikipedia project. The fax paus "vanity" article was actually a great way to get my feet wet and experience the self-correcting Wiki process. I learned a lot. Seanhood 13:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Points of information
The only place I reported it was at RFI. I also reported it to two people who I thought were Admins (turns out one isn't) who had made themselves involved in previous complaints against me by Owain at RFI and seemed to have sensible heads (I am new to all this procedure and I did not really know what the heck to do). In turn one of those people (the Admin as it turned out: Just ziz guy) reported it to CheckUser, not me. And then when Owain logged in and saw what was happening it was he, not I, who started yet another new strand at AN/I. So, in summary, I made one formal complaint, at RFI, and kept two interested parties informed.

I then started to feel extremely vulnerable - out on a limb - so informed several Admins who I know and trust (including Morwen who has a very long record of dealing with Owain, far longer than my experience) to watch the situation, making links to the relevant investigation, so there was no risk of duplicated effort. Why did I feel vulnerable? Well, I am sorry to say that several Users treat me with open contempt, and I am under the impression that they are only the tip of the iceberg. If I were to make a cock-up, as I seriously risked doing with my strident allegations of Owain's sockpuppetry, then there were several people who would very, very happily kick me when I was down.

I hope that you begin to understand the context of my actions. I do not know the Admin system, and nor do I have much interest in it, so it is perhaps understandable if a non-expert makes a few slip-ups. For example, I naively thought that sockpuppetry was banned here at Wikipedia, and was very, very shocked to find that it wasn't. I really do still find it extremely hard to believe. --Mais oui! 03:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

AN/I Help

 * Thanks for the help at WP:ANI, I don't think they were quite catching on (i still don't know if they will), but this is getting really ridiculous. pm_shef 03:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth Kerner
'':I'm sorry to say I disagree with your edit summary when you reinstated the prod tag on Elizabeth Kerner. You said of Monicasdude, ''reverted article. please do not assume bad faith and participate in discussion when it is proposed by fellow editors''. Monicasdude did not accuse anyone of bad faith, at least not that I can see in the edit summary. Removing a prod tag is the proper way to contest deletion and it was improper of you to restore it. When a prod is contested the next step is AfD. As you will see from the AfD debate, I found that over 500 libraries own her first book, and as her books were published in 1997, 2001 and, Amazon sales rank (which is I believe the past 7 days) is not very informative. Thatcher131 17:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)''


 * Please note that I did restore the Prod but it was only up for all of 5 seconds as I was about to take it back down after I realized that fact about the Prod. I never use prod's and thought they were to stimulate discussion and not meant to be taken down without discussion.  Another user decided to place up the AfD.  --Strothra 21:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

blanking on noticeboard
Thanks for noting that; I thought it was strange myself but failed to comment on it. Шизомби 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I too thought it was rather strange. Joe 18:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

RFC started on Merecat
I noticed you have met Merecat and therefore I would like to inform you that in light of recent events (not discussing disputed edits, disruptive behaviour, edit warring and making personal attacks) this Requests for comment/Merecat has been started. I trust should you want to contribute, you will be an objective bystander. If you do not want to comment that's OK. Sincerely Nomen Nescio 18:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reacting. At this time two editors have supported the RFC, so if you are still inclined to make a contribution you are welcome. [[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 00:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your incisive observations at Requests for comment/Merecat. Anytime you want to advise me of your point of view on any topic, I am inclined, after seeing your analysis, to pay careful attention when you comment. Merecat 02:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Mikeabundo RFC
Please see Talk:Numa Numa. There is a consensus that Mikeabundo's link is nonnotable and of poor quality. I do not see where you're getting the idea that Exploding Boy has ownership issues. Please provide diffs. Thanks. KI 19:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh man!

 * You, my friend, have just made my day! While I'm a little shaken that my good faith in VaughanWatch and our agreement was seemingly massively misplaced, I'm optimistic that this is (finally) over now. Thanks a lot for standing up for me, through this, it means a lot to know that there are still some users here that are unbiased! Thank you! - pm_shef 02:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

RfCU
Hmm... they looked like separate requests to me, since they used different headers and Deckiller's comment looked like he was asking for another check. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Monicascdude RfAR
Thanks for pointing that out; I hadn't noticed that particular comment belonged to someone else :( I've edited my response. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 21:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, the deletion process itself has some issues, so its great to have people like Monicasdude who help catch so many things. I've always been amazed at the breadth of subjects he's knowledgable on. Unfortunately, comments like the one he just made to me are the reason we got to this point.  I just hope we can come up with some solution so that Monicasdude can keep up the great work policing our deletions.  I know its been tried many times, but maybe we need to give the deletion process another look and see if there isn't some way we can keep so many brand new articles from being nominated.  I know I make it a habit to check an article history before considering any kind of deletion aside from those for attack pages, test pages and complete nonsense -- it would be nice if more people would make that effort.  After all, we have all the time in the world to correct things :) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 22:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Killian
See my reply my talk page. Merecat 05:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Microsoft 12" Ribbon Deletion Page
Hello, Thatcher131. As on my response on the mentioned page, concerning Kappa's deprodding of many articles that probably don't merit inclusion, I should have said "inappropriately" instead of wrongly, my mistake. Contesting the deletion of an article that is covered more extensively in another place, and which clearly does not merit its own article, I consider to be inappropriate and perhaps even lazy on the part of the editor, who could have spent a little more time to look into the subject instead of wantonly removing prod tags- which, if you check his recent hundred or so edits, all but a handful are exactly that. If you'd like to talk about this, just let me know on my talk page. Thank you, -Kuzaar 12:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to your message on my userpage:
 * I can understand that it may or may not be appropriate to mention Kappa specifically on the AFD vote page, but to be perfectly honest, I view it as a specific problem that needs to be addressed, or indeed an abuse of the system that he is able, with so little work, contest hundreds and hundreds of proposed deletions, when by all rights he should feel obligated to address the underlying concerns that the proposer had with the article. It bothers me that he is able to force the community into requiring consensus for things that are so insignificant that they should be allowed to quietly die Prod-ed instead of needing an AFD. It bothers me that he is able to make hours of workload for the other editors of Wikipedia with a few minutes' work. It bothers me that a handful of his recent hundred-fifty edits address actual problems with articles instead of casting about, undermining the spirit and the original intention of the prod tag. But most of all, it bothers me that he has stated that he would rather see every little bit of information in Wikipedia sequestered in its own stublike article instead of incorporated into larger, more cohesive and inclusive articles on widened subjects.
 * I hope you can understand my concerns with this subject, and further understand that when I mention his name, it is not a personal attack but my intention to bring my concerns to the notice of other editors, as I am unaware of a more proper venue in which to voice these. I am doing my best to assume good faith, here, but I find it difficult when a fellow-editor does so much to make the process of weeding out content whose subject doesn't meet standards for inclusion in its own article more painful for other editors. I honestly think that there is a responsibility on the behalf of both those who would keep the article and those who would delete it to at the very minimum, provide a full accounting of what the reasoning behind their position is.
 * To address your opinion of every article being given a week's grace before being removed, I have to agree entirely. Every article that does not meet criteria for speedy deletion, as consensus has dictated at Wikipedia, should be given a chance to perform to standards, but the underlying motivation behind my concern in this subject remains: it is unbefitting of an encyclopedia to have unfinished, low quality writing out in the article-space. Personally, I hold the opinion that userspace should be used to refine an article and bring it up to standard before throwing it out for the world to read. One should strive to make all of the material in our encyclopedia encyclopedic, if it is ever to be taken seriously.
 * To bring up one last point you brought up on my talk page, namely that of users contesting a proposed deletion having only the option and not the duty to make an attempt to fix what the editor originally found wrong with the article, I say that it is unjust to force anything but the decisionmaking onto other editors. If it were not for the fact that a concerned editor is required to go through the listing process and another to ultimately make the changes demanded by consensus, this would not be such a worry of mine, but the fact of the matter is that it is a waste of time to take an article that would otherwise have (rightly) died quietly or had its information merged into a more inclusive, broader article, and force the work of merging, deleting, or whatever it is that consensus mandates, onto other editors. I cannot imagine that this is the original intention of a user contesting a prod, but it is nonetheless, I think, a legitimate concern about the process.
 * In the future, if there is any advice or whatever you'd like me to know, just let me know via my userpage. Thank you, Kuzaar 15:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

More PROD/AFD disputes
Hello again, Thatcher131. I agree that you were categorically right in that my comments against user Kappa were uncalled-for, and I apologized to him on his talk page. Now comes the flip side of the coin. For calling a User:Monicasdude for doing basically the same thing, he left a snide little message on my talk page for asking him to restrain himself in the AFD, in which he has gone to each of Eusebeus' AFDs that call for consensus and stated that he thinks that all of the nominations are in bad faith. If you could advise me in any way concerning this, I would appreciate it greatly.

My Bad Faith
(copied from AfD page) I'm working to bring as many deprodded articles as I can. It is my bad that I have made it look like a targeted or bad faith campaign. I simply started with the swath deprodded by Kappa (and hardly all of them, only those where I felt the prodder made a prima facie case for prodding that warranted fuller discussion). Eusebeus 15:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Let me also add that identifying the deprodder was, in retrospect, a clear mistake and I have already advertised my apology to Kappa on his talk page for so doing and thereby inadvertently inviting uncivil comments. I am now working through a raft deprodded by Monicasdude, and while that has invited a suggestion from him that iot is somehow retaliatory (for what I don't know), nothing could be further from the truth. I think if you review my contributions, you will see I have no ill-will toward fellow contributors. But many contested prods should be brought to AfD for further discussion, as perhaps you might agree. Eusebeus 15:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Your suggestion that I have acted in bad faith stems from two things: (1) My apparent targeting of articles without regard to their merit, and (2) culling from specific editors. With respect to (1), I hope it is clear I have not done that, although I am sure I have sometimes overlooked aspects that could be used to argue the merits of the article. But AfD is not automatic deletion, so no harm done if it helps clearly establish the articles notability. With respect to (2), using mass deprods from specific editors is simply a shortcut way to find deprods for efficient review. If it was clear that the vast majority of articles I was bringing forward deserved to be kept, then I can understand allegations of bad faith. But many genuinely deserve debate at AfD, and that should clearly remove any taint of bad faith. I have inadvertently triggered a somewhat hysterical reaction, so your suggestion may be apt: desist for a while. But this is important maintenance work. Btw, I never criticised anyone voting any way on any article that I have brought to AfD. I am not even voting! Eusebeus 16:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

false statement on monicasdudes RFAR
On monicasdudes RfAR you state: "* From Swatjester: Monicasdude accuses another editor of bad-faith nomination for Speedy Deletion, without providing evidence of said bad faith. The "other editor" is Swatjester himself, who twice tried to speedy delete Theater intime after it had been nominated for AfD, which could be interpreted as an attempt to stifle debate on AfD by speedying it first."

In fact, that is not the case. About 30 seconds of research to the article shows that I've only made two edits to it: 1 was the initial AfD which I NOMINATED. Why would I want to stifle the debate that I nominated? That's what monicasdude's whole case is about, that I "improperly" nominated it.

Secondly, it was Sandstein who actually tried to speedy it. Monicasdude deleted it, and I reverted both because of his edit summary, and because I believed that it qualified for speedy deletion under the "no assertion of notability" clause.

Eitherway, your statement to the arbcom is misleading and incorrect. I've posted my evidence showing that to the arbcom. I'd appreciate if you'd remove that claim against me. Thanks. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  16:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  16:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sub-page
Thank you so much for the suggestion--I just took your advice. Stanley011 17:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

deprod tracking
wrt to this comment on User:Monicasdude's talk page: "As a substitute for the downed toolserver, looking at the contrib history of "known deprodders" is a logical step..."

I've looked at the toolserver a few times, and even when it was up I haven't been able to find a page/tool to track deprods, only prods. Can you point me to the correct location please? (I'll watch this page for replies) -- Hirudo 18:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * When prod worked off the toolserver there were two log pages linked on the main WP:PROD page, one was the prod log and the other was the log of articles from which the prod tag was removed. It included all reasons for removal, so contested prods, merges, AfDs and deletions all showed up.  I don't know where the link or the log is now but I assume if the toolserver and automatic prod list come back on line that the other log will come back too. Thatcher131 18:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

anarchist faq
Thanks for the comments. Also, is the issue of using it as a source in other articles. It's not a credible secondary source by Wikipedia standards as far as being qualified to comment on the work of anarchist philosophers. It can only be referenced in its own article just to point to evidence of what it says. See? RJII 15:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The difference between An Anarchist FAQ and wikipedia is that AFAQ has a team of editors to check the content that people submit to it. You seem to think it's a publicly editable wiki; it is not. -- infinity  0 

Could you please consider changing your "outside view"? An Anarchist FAQ cannot "be edited online by anonymous users". -- infinity  0  16:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I never said that the authors include "other views", but that they make a good-faith attempt to try to be neutral. There is no need to be so picky and attack the FAQ for being unneutral, especially in its introduction, because it is not a major issue for the FAQ. It has been complimented by anarchists who disagree with the authors (See the An Anarchist FAQ), so that is evidence of its neutrality. Of course it is biased against anarcho-capitalism, but those parts of the FAQ take up a very minor section of it, and making the FAQ seem biased against all who disagree in the intro gives undue weight to this. -- infinity  0  12:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I do understand your reservations about An Anarchist FAQ being used as a secondary source, but in the vast majority, if not all, of the cases it has been cited on wikipedia, it has been cited as a primary source as an example of what anarchists think. -- infinity  0  13:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the FAQ is not transparent - but the authors themselves acknowledge that "they are sure some will disagree with us" . I just think saying "An Anarchist FAQ says" is clumsy at times and implies that nobody else thinks this. I do think the FAQ does indeed voice the views of many anarchists, but I see your point that AFAQ does not represent all anarchists. At times I have used "Many anarchists, including AFAQ, think". Would this phrasing be acceptable? It uses AFAQ as a citation, but maintains generality. -- infinity  0  14:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

So... what do you think? I replied just up there. -- infinity  0  15:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, some (if not many) individualist anarchists think it as well. (There is a source stating this in the Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article (if RJII hasn't deleted it.) This is why I have always hesistated to be precise in identifying the subjects of the sentence, because there is no way to categorise them under one adjective - saying "social anarchists" comes back to the problem of generality again. The problem with saying the dispute is between socialists and capitalists is that it implies equal numbers of both types, which is false. I understand that the comment "many" or "most" anarchists is incredibly hard to source, but the alternative is to gives WP:NPOV to a minority.

"The editors acknowledge they are social anarchists but state that they accept contributions to the FAQ from all strains of anarchist thought. However, this can not be independently verified." - I think this sentence is a bit weaselly, but it's got the right idea. However, instead of putting it in the footnotes, I think it would be better to put it in the article about the document, so you don't have to repeat it every time?

Thanks for your suggestion about how and when to use it as a secondary source; that seems like a good way to do it. :) -- infinity  0  11:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sunday Times Golden Globe Race
Hi, I thought you might be interested to know that the Sunday Times Golden Globe Race article is up for FAC. If you like, I'd welcome your comments on the FAC review page. — Johan the Ghost seance 16:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

AFD on James D. Montgomery
Hello again, Thatcher. To address my first point most directly, I agree with a great deal of what you said in your comment and vote on the AFD on JDM's article. The man has probably contributed a great deal toward the sum of human knowledge. Similarly, I am of the opinion that such pop-culture trash articles as you brought up in your vote do not belong in any encyclopedia- as the old adage goes, Wikipedia is not paper, but neither is Wikipedia toilet paper. When the days have turned and the hivemind of pop culture turns to the next big thing, will it seem quite as appropriate to have a different article for every monster from a children's cartoon that simply happens to have pervaded the mind of a consumer culture? I think not, but at the same time, two wrongs don't make a right. The researcher in the article is kind of a borderline case for me. While I want the Wikipedia to be inclusive, I also want it to be encyclopedic, and that's a difficult balance to strike.
 * On a second note, it seems I found myself whipped into the tizzy of the Monicasdude debate thanks to my trying to mediate and keep cool heads between him and Eusebeus. Goes to show you, I guess, that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions and a bit of irony. Kuzaar 03:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * (Butting in on a topic I really don't have anything to do with here, but I can't resist). To Kuzaar: amen, halleluja and "my opinion exactly" on the rash of pop culture trash that keeps invading Wikipedia. -- Hirudo 03:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

One more thing re: Monicasdude
Not to make you my one-stop place for disputes, but you do seem more knowledgeable about this than me. I'm trying to mediate between Monicasdude and Eusebeus by making each see the other's argument, but as you might have expected, this has proven difficult, and has evoked nothing but malice from Mdude, who cannot seem to assume good faith. In the case that I'm talking about, Eusebeus had made an argument against Monicasdude. Monicasdude replied in a snotty way and blanked most of his argument, claiming it was a "personal attack". I re-inserted his arguments and reminded him not to delete other's comments from his page unless it could be shown that they were a personal attack, and to assume good faith. In response, he left me a vandalism warning on my talk page and claimed that I "could not make those kinds of edits on other users' talk page." If you could give me any advice on how I should handle his unending belligerence, or refer me to someone that can, I would appreciate it immensely. Kuzaar 14:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello, Thatcher, and thank you for your quick response. I suppose I had overestimated my ability to mediate between the two parties, and that it was perhaps a lapse in judgement that made me think I could make a difference when there is already an RFAr open against him. Thank you again, for your advice and patience in your response, though, I will put it to the best use that I can. Kuzaar 14:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Libraries
Your most recent comment on the Winship AfD references the number of libraries that house various works of his. That sounds like an outstanding tool in helping to judge academic notability; how are you doing that? RGTraynor 14:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me; there may be some way to connect (or to find similar DBs), but anything that improves my factchecking is just peachy with me. RGTraynor 15:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Your comment
Hi Thatcher. If you genuinely believe my actions to be trolling or in bad faith, as you posted, you can (since Monicasdude is unwilling) post an RFC against me to solicit reaction from the larger community. Apparently, MD's campaign to discredit my prod review has been successful enough to convince people that I am, in fact, targeting him specifically (simply as the author of deprods) and you may, as a result, find a sympathetic response since stalking is a serious offence. He suggested specifically I solicit comment from the deprodder in order to avod the unpleasantness recently encountered at AfD, and so I have done so. In response I received an accusation of vandalism. However, if you disagree with my actions, then as you note there are venues for remedial action. Btw, now that I am here, I myself have authored an academic page (Franz Babinger) and the issues you raised in the academic debate are germane. Personally, I feel that 100+ citations are not enough, but the issue is clearly one of some contention. Cheers, Eusebeus 01:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I appreciate your input, but if you check out his RFAr and the notice on ANI, as well as the numbers produced by my deprod review as well as his wanton violations of WP:CIVIL, I think you would have a hard time justifying your outrage, since his over-the-top responses to my nominations are apparently typical. AfD is about establishing consensus, and bringing disputed prods to that venue is an appropriate action. I brought a raft deprodded by Kappa (more than those by MD) and you don't see him acting in this way. But - by all means, conclude as you must. . Eusebeus 02:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The Vaughan sock factory
User:Israelforever was already blocked by Curps on April 21. User:CelticChick hasn't been blocked, but that username only ever made two edits in February and has never been seen again, so I'm not sure whether it's necessary or not at this point.

In the meantime, however, I'm newly concerned about User:YoungWebster (same old POV problems at Susan Kadis) and User:64.228.149.67 (whose only WP contribution to date was to allege on my talk page that User:70.31.246.119, the editor who reverted Webster's POV on Kadis, was a sock puppet of User:pm_shef. They really seem to like that tactic, for some reason, but I'm not sure I've seen enough of a smoking gun to block either of them yet. I have put in an WP:RFCU request, though I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if checkuser just wants to wash their hands of the whole thing by now.) Bearcat 03:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The plot thickens. According to User:70.31.246.119's edit history, they were previously involved in talk page blanking back in January, consistent with the tactic the sockfarm was using at the time. Which suggests to me that 70.* is most likely a VW sock too — and it's quite possible, in fact, that 70.* and Webster deliberately wagged the dog to frame pm_shef. Bearcat 03:46, 29 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!  19:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Unattributed Audio Transcript on Jack Hyles Page
You have made suggestions regarding the Jack Hyles page, as reflected in the discussion archives for that page. Are you aware that the Jack Hyles article contains links purportedly to a TV station's news broadcast, but which are really unattributed MP3s hosted on the personal Web page of a Hyles opponent? Besides violating copyright, this is an instance of unreliable sourcing. Pooua 22:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Newbie crushing
I'm a little off-topic from the Village pump with this comment so I thought I'd bring it here. Your argument regarding newbies' articles getting stomped at birth would hold more water if you didn't use two vanity articles as examples. A lot of people - me included - are sickened by people who go through the trouble of creating a Wikipedia user ID and kinda learning how to create articles, all just to see their own names in Google search results. Now, if you want to really tug at people's heart strings, bring up poor User:Patz1675 who was simply trying to add historical information about her home town (which also happens to be my home town) and got beaten down so bad that she left the project completely. She was very interested in history and could have had some really interesting things to add to the knowledge base - but she got run right outta Dodge. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Information.
Hi,

Based on your edit summary for the page you removed from the list of dead end articles, I was not sure if you were asking a question, or just expressing your thoughts. Assuming the former, what do you propose the entry should be redirected to? It seems to meet the standards of notability, so I would hold off on deleting the article for a little while. Folajimi 21:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good deal. You seem to be very witty with the summaries then! Downright hilarious. :) Folajimi 21:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Geoff Goodfellow
Geoff is a great guy and RadioMail was a great piece of software. I have known him and Lazaridis for 15+ years now. As you can see from my User:Rdjordan page, I have been doing wireless data since for quite a while. My history actually goes back to RAM Paging in 1986. I post what I can and comment where I can and have time. I have a lot of "stuff" in my archive about wireless data and the history of wireless email in particular. I just have to pick and choose what I can "share" with the world. Some of it is propreitary, some of it is public knowledge. I find the New York Times article to be very interesting and what is more interesting is the multimedia interview of Geoff.

RGLE Sock Farm fix
Thanks for the fix. I wasn't sure exactly what happened to mess that up. MSJapan 15:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I seem to be running into you as the voice of reason all over the place. Thanks. AnonEMouse 21:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Merecat is Rex / Anon Texan
Hi Thatcher. I'm sorry to disturb you - but shouldn't the sockpuppet templates (resulting from the checkuser on Merecat, which confirmed his identity as a troll/sock of Rex/Anon Texan) be applied to Merecat's user page as well as the anon's? I don't want to be inflammatory or appear aggressive so I'm merely asking you for clarification since you have the knowledge of the issue's context. Moreover isn't Rex/Anon Texan blocked and/or banned? Thanks for helping me understand. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds totally logical to me. Thanks again for your opinion. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)