User talk:WAS 4.250/Archive02

Dinosaur
My edits are valid grammatical and typographical corrections. See the Manual of Style. What's your problem?? Kindly quit reverting, and don't make false accusations of vandalism, or you'll be reported to Rfc. - MPF 15:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Same goes for Polar Bear - MPF 22:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi WAS - many thanks for the notes and clarification. I agree that some of my copyediting like the linespace removals was optional (I conversely find that editing is easier without them!), but most of it was repairing other peoples' sloppy typing, e.g. putting references at the start of new sentences: "In fact because ..." instead of at the end of the sentence they apply to; putting punctuation inside quotes when it should be outside (Owen didn't coin the term "dinosaurfullstop", he coined the term "dinosaur"); and dealing with unspaced mdashes (a nightmare for editors as they "fragment" when mouse-highlighted, leaving the ampersand and semi-colon attached to the adjacent words). I didn't remove any references at Polar Bear (tho' I have removed many spam links from other articles!), I just moved some to what I felt was a more logical position in the paragraph (e.g. the list of populations, it is now in the preamble "Other scientists recognize six distinct", instead of at the end of the list of populations (which was previously a funny mix of list and prose). The reason I combined 'Sources' and 'External links' into the one header was to shorten the over-long TOC a bit; I can put it back if you like. The details I added on food and breeding were from a combination of 2 books and some of the links already in the Sources/Ext links - it makes it a bit difficult to know what referencing to add; equally, it is all what I'd regard as "common knowledge", info that you'll find in almost every source about the species going back over a long period. Generally, I only think it necessary to add citations for information that might not be widely available, e.g. recent information that hasn't appeared in popular reference books yet.

On caps for species common names, this has been extensively discussed on the WP:TOL talk page (look its list of archives); there has been a repeated though small majority in favour of caps (following the example of most field guides, which are where most people become familiar with species). Both are acceptable for articles (titles and text); overall, all birds and most mammals use caps, about half of plants do, while most fish and insects use lower case. But it is best to be consistent within a single article, so as the title is Polar Bear (not polar bear), consistency requires it to be Polar Bear throughout the article.

PS I know all about coping with vandalism on wikipedia, I've been at it for nearly 2 years :-) - MPF 17:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi WAS - many thanks again, great that all's solved happily! I know what you mean about being protective of pages, I check everything that gets added to any pages about conifers very closely (just about to do so now :-) - MPF 20:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Fresheneesz
Hey WAS, thanks so much for reverting those ridiculous edits on the Entropy page. Is there some way to prevent this kind of ridiculous editing in the future? The same guy totally messed up the Arrow of Time article (I reverted that) - he seems to mean well but... These are nontrivial subjects that should probably not have fundamental changes made to them by individuals without formal training in the subject matter. Heck, I don't even remember enough of my physics classes to edit this stuff without looking it up in a book! - JustinWick 18:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Vandalism in progress WAS 4.250 12:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, its fine you think my edits are ridiculous - but did you guys actually go and *look* it up in a book before you reverted my changes? E=mc^2 is most definately an approximation - have you heard of relativity? I'm editing these pages to match current theory, and current knowlege - as is the entire point of wikipedia. I am most definately *NOT* trying to match text books, or in any way parallel the idiotic way our society goes about teaching us science. E=mc^2 only works when the velocity of an object is near 0. What is so hard about understanding that? Fresheneesz 20:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You say "E=mc^2 only works when the velocity of an object is near 0." Provide a source and we'll talk. WAS 4.250 12:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Max Plank apparently said so:, tell me - is the m in that equation relatvistic mass? Because if it is, that needs to be explained on that page and a link to relativistic mass given. Fresheneesz 18:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In relativity, m *ALWAYS* means relativistic mass. m0 is "rest mass" - a very different, but related quantity.  I do agree with Fresheneesz that this is an integral part of the equation, and should be mentioned in the article.  I will effect alterations to that effect.  - JustinWick 05:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be discussing this on someone else's talk page, but I can't let this go. No, m is rest mass. "Relativistic mass" is an old concept, now rarely used; when the formulas are written correctly, there's no need of the concept. The problem with Fresheneesz's edits is that the E in E=mc2 is the rest energy; that is, the energy in the object's frame. So there's no "v" around (or it's zero). Thus E=mc2 is exact (to the extent that special relativity itself is exact). --Trovatore 16:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I did some reading last night about this, and I was totally wrong about that... I asked someone else about this who was in the same degree program about this before, but we'd both learned out of the same ancient textbooks.  I stand happily corrected :) - JustinWick 17:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd happily stand corrected if adequate sources where provided. I hate this arguing. But the subject in question is the meaning of the "m" in Einstein's "E=mc squared" and the sources provided AGREE that the equation when written ("outdated") meant relativistic mass. That it is also true when velocity equals zero is a subset. Please read the source I provided above. Dumbing it down for students doesn't change the meaning of the equation. WAS 4.250 17:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

There are good sources and there are bad sources. The author of the piece you referenced doesn't know what he's talking about. Please read this. Changes to the article to reflect knowledge contained in it but not in the wikipedia article MIGHT be appropriate, and probably ARE, if done in the right way. I myself am much better at facts than the best way to present those facts. Maybe the talk page of the article would be a good place to suggest additions to the article to present what you discover at the source I just suggested you read. But make sure you understand something before you jump in and change stuff. Saying you don't believe in entropy and making changes to the entropy article seems, well, vandal-like... WAS 4.250 21:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't say I don't understand enropy. I said I don't understand it fully - and i doubt many chemists do either. Its a difficult subject. I edit things I *do* understand, and I am most definately correct in the relationship between free energy and entropy.
 * - secondly, your constant crying for sources is getting ridiculous - a source is not what makes something correct. I would urge you to think about what *is* and what *isn't* correct before you revert an edit. When I see edits I don't understand - I ignore them, because I can't say whether its right or wrong. I'll only corect something in cases where i'm sure i'm right.
 * - I think your statement "A little knowlege is a dangerous thing" is a horrible outlook, and completely contrary to the ideas on which wikipedia is based. The point of Wikipedia is not to put people through the rigamarole we went through in school, but to teach the full depth of a concept - with all its knowlege in full view.
 * - all that said, If you want me to take the m in E=mc^2 as relativistic mass - I will note that on the page myself. If you want me to take m as rest mass (as it should be - agreed upon by most physicists - see the page for rest mass, its the same page as relativistic mass), then I will reinstate my approximation claim. So please choose what you want. Fresheneesz 01:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a textbook (see Wikibooks for that). It's supposed to be a good starting point for a subject, not an authoritative text on anything specific.  It's a fantastic resource, but  you have to understand that expedience, conciseness, and the expected audience levels necessitate certain approaches to material.  - JustinWick 05:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Despite the fact that wikipedia isn't a textbook - it still needs to contain truthful, non-misleading information. If we make the information understandable but *incorrect* or *misleading* - that is worse than a correct but hard to understand explanation. Fresheneesz 18:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

See Internet troll. WAS 4.250 01:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Further discussion at Talk:Relativistic mass. WAS 4.250 17:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary
Hi WAS. I would like to ask you to put an edit summary when you edit. And thank you for your patience with Fresheneesz. The user is new and is still learning how to deal with things here. Enjoy! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * And one more remark. According to the Manual of Style, one should avoid using capitals in the middle of section headings, but use them only at the beginning of heading and in proper names. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

E=mc squared etc.
We both want what is best for wikipedia. Neither of us wants to argue/fight/revert-war. Let's find some third party that we agree knows physics to settle this. I'm trying to have less to do with wikipedia these days. I'm easy with regard to how stuff is displayed. Help me feel comfortable with editing less ... THANK YOU !!!! WAS 4.250 23:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, I don't want to get into a revert war. That's why I haven't reverted anything.  But I do think something needs to be done about this situation.  We can ask a third person to come in.  Some physics guys I know and trust here are User:CSTAR, User:CYD.  Do you know them?  Or suggest someone?  As far as disengaging yourself from WP, well, someone will have to stick around to defend relativistic mass, right?  Who, if not you? -lethe talk 00:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've posted a request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics -lethe talk 00:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * A post out of nowhere. As far as I know, mass stays the same, it is the "weight" that changes with acceleration (aka gravity), thus more energy is required to move the same mass (one of the theoretical reasons one cannot exceed the speed of light (although one can appear to do so thanks to wormholes, parallel universes, etc.)).  Jim62sch 21:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Four dead in Ohio
Tin soldiers and Nixon coming, We're finally on our own. This summer I hear the drumming, Four dead in Ohio.

Gotta get down to it Soldiers are cutting us down Should have been done long ago. What if you knew her And found her dead on the ground How can you run when you know?

Gotta get down to it Soldiers are cutting us down Should have been done long ago. What if you knew her And found her dead on the ground How can you run when you know?

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming, We're finally on our own. This summer I hear the drumming, Four dead in Ohio.

4.250.33.20 03:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Asian Flu
Out of curiosity, why did you conflate/remove the second paragraph from Asian Flu? The resulting revision seems to be rather difficult to read and somewhat ungrammatical in comparison, and while the parenthetical comments on the HxNx notation are also in the Avian influenza article I don't think it's redundant to include them here. Ziggurat 22:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response! Normally I would just switch it myself, but I prefer to ask when I'm unclear about the reasons for the change, exactly to circumvent the possibility of acrimony. I don't do revert wars either! (and I'm a reformed sourcer myself - all my old contributions aren't referenced very well, but I'm trying now.) Cheers, Ziggurat 05:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Links, Links everywhere; My head is gonna explode!!!!!!!!!!
Hi,

The recently nominated article Dinosaur, is in need of a major revamp. And you're, to put it bluntly, not helping!! Have you read the failed FA submission? One of the reasons for it being denied is because of all the quotes & links on all the paragraphs, of which, you have put a lot on. Also, the article is about dinosaurs, not merely the dino bird connection, yet on every paragraph, sentence even, the words feathers, avian & bird appear! I would applaud you if you created an article solely on the Dino Bird Connection, putting all the links there, instead of crowding the Dinosaur article with them. Another example of un needed quotes was your most recent one, in which you quote a quote by the mysterious Myer, yet make no attempt to explain who the heck he is, what he does or what he has to do with anything. But at the end, you add yet another link, the reason why the article was denied FA status. I know you're only trying to help, but the article could look so much better without having to use all those links & quotes. Tomorrow or the next day, I'm going to delete all the links & quotes, putting the most interesting ones under the external link section, unless there is a major outcry not to do so. It would be great if you could help & not make this into another "Bone Wars".

Sincery, Spawn Man 03:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Please reply here, my talk page or on the dinsaur talk page....


 * Here is an example of my frustrations: Biomechanics has given insight into how fast dinosaurs could run, whether diplodocids could create sonic booms by snapping their tails like a whip , whether giant theropods had to slow down to avoid fatal belly flops , and if sauropods could float.


 * There are 5 links in this two line section! This is just crazy!!! Crazy I tell you, Crazy!! Spawn Man 03:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Nothing really, just not putting anymore useless quotes on the article. Besides, I have found a solution to our problemo; Foot notes! This way all the links need not be deleted, but merely conveyed to the notes section. Amazing huh? Spawn Man 02:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Foot noting done after 4 hours work... I definitely deserve a medal... Bye... Spawn Man 04:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You didn't actually have to give me one however, but I will graciously accept your award & will consider you as a close ally... Spawn Man 21:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * BTW: Do you have any ideas on how we can further improve the Dinosaur article? We could collaberate & together get it to the main page. I just finished adding to the In popular culture section. The only sections which need real work on them are the Avian Dinosaur connection section & the History of dicovery section. Any ideas? Spawn Man 03:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Question: (I know, I've lumped you in with helping me) Have you noticed what's missing from the article? How dinosaurs become fossils! I'm gonna put a short section under the fields of study heading, explaining how they become fossilized etc etc. Spawn Man 04:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Kyra Phillips
Please don't post the entire transcript of the CNN segment, as this is most likely a copyright violation. A link will do. Thanks. Gamaliel 16:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair use
Instead of just reverting back to your version over and over again, why don't we finish discussing this on the talk page first? The version you keep leaving it as is, whatever you think about the emphasis on text length, simply not comprehensible. It moves from saying that works are copyrighted to saying that this page is about fair use, without describing in the slightest what the two have to do with one another. If you look at the talk page you'll see I've suggested an alternative wording. Insteading of just deleting, why don't you work with me to come up with a better wording which does the same work. --Fastfission 00:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The question is what is appropriate for the introduction. The page of course discusses all four points of fair use. Accuracy for such a page can be achieved only to the degree which is comprehensible to the average Wikipedian. If the problem is in absolute statements, I'm happy to use qualifiers ("In most cases," "Often this means," "In general," etc.). But let's work on getting something which is both accurate and reads well. Because a policy which is hard to make sense of is worse than one which is not accurate &mdash; at least in the latter category you'll get consistent results, which can be systematically corrected. At least, that's my view on it. I'm happy to act as an intermediary with you on this. --Fastfission 04:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement with everything you just said. WAS 4.250 13:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Artemis
Hi! Thanks for starting the Artemis (brothel) article, that was indeed missing. I hope you don't mind that I changed it a bit and added some information. Cheers, AxelBoldt 17:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Face transplant
Reference to the operation on a woman to reattach her face can be found here Sorry not to have done a search first. Quiensabe 2005-12-11 15:21 UTC


 * The Australian case is less well known than the Indian one, as the woman involved remained anonymous. It got some media coverage because of Face/Off being at the box office. The Indian woman, Sandeep Kaur, appeared on a documentary on the Discovery Channel.

Quiensabe 2005-12-11 17:12 UTC

H5N1
"the article could use some spiffing up" <-- I am going to be continuing to move all external links from the main text and replacing them with citations to the references list according to footnotes. I will be reviewing all commercial links. A commercial link that sends me to an advertisement page will be removed without much comment -removed commercial link- is all I'm likely to say. In my view, a link to a commercial website should be justified on the talk page before adding it to the article. --JWSchmidt 22:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm having second thoughts about the "all". Maybe there is a natural division in the H5N1 article between the top part which should change less rapidly and the bottom part which seems to be a dumping ground for the "news report of the day". Numbered references make sense for the more stable part of the article while in-text external links may be best for parts that will change week to week. --JWSchmidt 03:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * A man after my own heart! I go further and find excuses to not "improve" even the stable links. But your distiction actually makes sense. Mine ... well, I know I'm just being lazy. WAS 4.250 03:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

DHMO
Discussion continued on my talk page to prevent break-up. JRM · Talk 16:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverting
lol. About the reverting, just don't want to see a edit war start. I think the current version says everything in a short manner and some parts of your edit are slightly pov. If you really feel strongly, you can discuss on talk. But sorry for any problems, still good work. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 23:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Voting?
Hi, may I make a request? could you please vote for my FAC, Dinosaur here:Featured article candidates/Dinosaur? It would mean so much to me & I would definitely return the favour if you need anything voted on. I've come so far, but I just want to make sure as voting can turn sour at any moment? You have also made numerous contributions to the article, so it is much mine as it is yours. Don't feel pressured, but thanks anyway... Spawn Man 02:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Take your time... BTW, Thanks for the gastroliths link, bt do you have any printed references to it such as an encyclopedia or from a magazine? If you got the story from a amgazine, could you leave the article's author, title, date & volume, as well as page & of course the mag, on my talk? Thanks, Spawn Man 03:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Biographies
This is an excellent idea. Thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I take it you release me from my pledge "to never talk to you or about you anywhere ever"? (I've done my best to keep it.) If you don't reply, I'll assume I'm not released. WAS 4.250 19:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I certainly do release you, if you'd like to be released. ;-) I'm going to try to add something to the biography page over the next hour or so, but feel free to revert me if you don't like it. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. WAS 4.250 19:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've reverted to a version that allows blogs in some circumstances, and I've expanded it, and explained my reasoning at Wikipedia talk:Biographies on living persons deserve a special sensitivity. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know what you think? I'm unsure of what I'm writing: there are good and bad implications in both directions. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Opening to dinosaur!
Could you please leave the opening to dinosaur alone?

"Dinosaurs were reptile and bird-like vertebrates that dominated the terrestrial ecosystem for over 160 million years from around 230 million years ago until 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, when all non-avian dinosaurs became extinct. Dinosaurs still exist today in the line of birds (avian dinosaurs)......", I feel this is much better than,

"Dinosaurs are vertebrates (that range from crocodile-like to birds) that dominated the terrestrial ecosystem for over 160 million years from around 230 million years ago until 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, when all non-avian dinosaurs became extinct; and still exist today in the line of birds (avian dinosaurs)......".

Remember, the lead to dinosaur is eventually going onto the main page, so it has to be perfect! There should be no brackets & no repeating. Yet yours has repeating & brackets. There is no need for "(that range from crocodile-like to birds)" as the line "Dinosaurs still exist today in the line of birds (avian dinosaurs)" explains that they are bird like while this statement suggests they were also crocodile like; "Dinosaurs were reptile...." Further more, not all dinosaurs were crocodile like, & suggesting they were reptile like is a better assumption. Plus, do not put "Dinosaurs are vertebrates". Rather, put "Dinosaurs were vertebrates" as dinosaurs are dead apart from the line of birds which are not dead & this is explained in this line here; "Dinosaurs still exist today in the line of birds (avian dinosaurs)". This rewrite might please both of us....

"Dinosaurs were vertebrates that ranged from reptile-like to bird-like in appearance. Dinosaurs dominated the terrestrial ecosystem for over 160 million years from around 230 million years ago until 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, when all non-avian dinosaurs became extinct. Dinosaurs still exist today in the line of birds (avian dinosaurs)".

This way, you keep some aspects of yours, while I keep some of mine. It explains what they looked like, that they are still alive today & when they lived from... Kind regards, Spawn Man 00:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Obviously you have no complaints, so I'll go ahead with the change. Thanks. Spawn Man 02:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year. Guettarda 17:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory message
Hi. I am confused with your message. Were you saying that I was wrong to dispute Brandt's conspiracy theory, or that you think that my own beliefs are silly? I am a bit confused with what you meant there. Can you elaborate a bit? :) Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 21:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The problems with helping out strangers
I thought that I'd explain how I inherited my Wikistalker a bit here. He will likely come to your talk page to harass me through here, since he just "happens to stumble upon" pages that I edited. So I will see if I can present this properly here.

I was helping out one of the "newbies in distress", User:Daniel Brandt, and this involved helping to fix up the page about him: Daniel Brandt (that was only a small part of what I did with the issue though). It was actually extraordinarily successful. Basically everyone who was involved with him apologised, or made amends or otherwise agreed to make peace, his article was made a lot more neutral, his account was unbanned, and Jimbo Wales himself approved of everything that had happened. I got dozens of commendations from my work with it, to try to make peace. There was the odd accusation that I was "acting as Brandt's proxy", in spite of us disagreeing on huge issues, but in the end that was all sorted out. You can see how that happened by looking at User:Zordrac/Seigenthaler and User:Zordrac/Daniel Brandt, and indeed even User:Zordrac/experts is as a result of my experiences there.

Right at the end, I had one particularly disruptive user who started making really horrendous accusations of me on Talk:Daniel Brandt, which I found quite shocking. This user, as it turned out, was mentioned on http://www.wikipedia–watch.org/hivemind.html, and, amongst other things, was complaining because he wanted to put "see also: Outing" on the page. He complained because Daniel Brandt had written on his page next to him "in an apparent attempt to infer that I am gay", and this user said that he thought that I was somehow responsible for it, and insisted that I should take it down (inferring that Daniel Brandt and myself were the same person).

I tried to talk to this person several times, but he just launched more accusations and was very nasty, with very nasty edit summaries. So I wrote to Daniel Brandt via the e-mail address on his web site (the first time that I'd ever contacted him, for reference), and amongst other things advised him that "Outing" didn't mean that he was gay, it was actually trying to accuse him of being a hypocrite. This was my brief summary of the rather lengthy explanation that the user wrote in the article page, which was along the lines of "For those that can't figure out what Outing is for, it is because it is hypocritical that a privacy advocate would try to find out the personal details of people on his web site". So, to put it simply, he was calling Brandt a hypocrite. I summarised things. I also explained to him that it was inappropriate to make such a statement in a "see also", regardless of his comments explaining it, and that he should put it in the main page, with evidence, rather than just being his personal opinion. There was 100% agreement by all contributors about this.

He kept trying to add in "Outing" and it was reverted by everyone. He kept insisting that it was me who was doing all of the reverting, and made nasty comments about me doing it, even when I went for a compromise to change "See also: outing" to "See also: hypocrisy".

The result of all of this was that a number of users were insisting that Brandt was a hypocrite, in fact worse than that, and it severely damaged his reputation - not because of what he'd done, but because of what people said about him. I explained to Brandt in my e-mail to him that actually he was wrong in suggesting that the content of his article was "true, but a privacy invasion". Rather, I demonstrated to him that it was in fact untrue, and very libellous, and I presented to him many reasons why it was libellous, which included reference to the "See also: Outing" bit.

Brandt for his part disagreed with me, and got really angry at me, even though Jimbo Wales agreed with me. So I told Brandt "stuff you" and stopped helping him.

I thought that that might stop this abusive user, and so wrote him a message to say so, and that we could make peace now as I was no longer his enemy, and even pointed out that his request had been received and the info about him had been changed to what he requested. But that was when he started stalking me.

It started off with just a few abusive threatening messages on my talk page. 4 of them to be precise. I just wiped them and he kept reverting my wipes of them insisting that he wanted his threat to be out in the open. It was not a threat to get me sent to ArbCom, by the way. Rather it was a threat to "Not do anything like that again, or else" and he called me a stinking filthy liar, which is what he'd been calling me the entire time, before I first communicated with him. I communicated with him because of his hostility, to try to calm him down. Indeed, he had this hostility since well before I even started to help Daniel Brandt out.

Then everyone who I talked to about anything he went to talk to them and added these ridiculous lies, quoting what I'd said to him and then lying about what I'd said. It was humorous in a lot of ways. The quotes that he was using clearly demonstrated that I was trying to help him out, and that he had responded by harassing me. I really didn't see the need to present any evidence since his own evidence proved his guilt.

He looked like he was going to go away when he latched on to this issue with Lulu. I got a message and went to Lulu's talk page to try to explain to her that it was not an attack on Lulu. But I saw then these horrendous lies from the other person, and indeed agreement, and thus Lulu agreed to also stalk me.

And that's where we got to. For what it's worth, Lulu has accused me of being a sock puppet of Poetlister and of doing all of this as a campaign against her - even though we never met before this. So if we believe both of them, I am a sock puppet of Daniel Brandt and Poetlister. The ridiculousness of their claims cannot be understated. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 01:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons
Hi WAS, hope all is well with you. As you probably saw, there was a draft alternative page of the biographies of living persons, and as there was a bit of parallel editing going on, I've merged the two, retaining almost all of the changes in the draft as people seemed to prefer that version. It's now all at WP:BLP. As this was the seed you planted, you might want to take a close look and make sure you agree with it. Thank you again for having the idea and for your work on the page, and season's greetings to you and your loved ones. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Ignore the Arbitration Committee
Thanks for your note and your clarifying comment. FYI I added it to the page as it's not immediately obvious that the article is satire (I certainly didn't read it as such). Since it's living in the Wikipedia namespace, I felt it was best to include a disclaimer that it's not Wikipedia policy to encourage users to ignore ArbCom. I suppose that might be considered obvious but you never know with some people. You might consider moving it to a subpage of your user space to avoid any misunderstanding. As a side note, I completely agree with the sentiment. Since ArbCom's goal is to keep the peace, if anyone were to follow the advice set in the essay and harmoniously edit on articles they're supposedly banned from, who apart from other people involved in the dispute is going to care? Regards,  howch e  ng   {chat} 07:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much
When I think of all of us who worked together so hard for so long, I think of the line from Henry V We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...

It was a fun ride, wasn't it? So thanks you guys, that meant a lot to me. And it was a particularly pleasant suprise to see your name.

Who did the Thelonious with a mop artwork? Brilliant! FeloniousMonk 08:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

re: your note at my talk
Thank you for writing, but I'm not sure that I understand your question. You seem to have a word or two out of place, and I've got a couple guesses as to what your intended meaning might be - and I don't want to assume wrong. So if you could re-write the question then I'll do my best to respond. Thanks Blackcats 04:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

See reply at my talk page. Blackcats 04:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

In depth reply now posted at my talk... Blackcats 05:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

New reply posted again... Blackcats 20:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Helping Hand:


I'm thanking everyone who helped me majorly in getting Dinosaur to the main page, especially on New Year's Day! It was not a one man job & I really appreciate the help you guys have done. Happy New Year! Spawn Man 02:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Price Andeson Act
Hello. I see you have taken an interest in the PAA page. Welcome, and particularly, if you have time, feel free to contribute to the debate on the talk page. At the moment there is an arbitration dispute about the page. The history of this is long and convoluted with the page bouncing about like mad, so it takes quite a bit of effort to read up on all the issues (I know, it wasn't so long ago that I came across it myself). The page needs a few more dedicated and informed followers, but all interest appreciated. Sandpiper 14:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ignore the Arbitration Committee
I reverted your last edit at this MFD as it removed several other editors comments, I'm going to assume good faith that it was in error. Please check the discussion and re-submit any comments as required, withough removing other's.  Thank you! xaosflux Talk  / CVU  20:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Please reply on, or leave a link to here on, my Talk Page if needed.

== !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ==

This may sound a little harsh, but for F!^* sake man, put alllllllllllllllll external links as FOOTNOTES!!!!!!!. There should be absolutely no external links in the actual text! Now I know you're not stupid, but you consistantly continue to stuff up the Dinosaur article by putting external links in the text!! It's easy:

Put this; "blah blah blah blah text text text..

Save.

Put this in the appropriate place in the notes section: *.

Save. Easy as that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....... Spawn Man 02:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What the heck happened at my talk page? It's weird. Plus sorry bout snapping at you up there, I'm just tired of mopping up other's messes. Spawn Man 03:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Dinosaur edit summary
While I disagree with Spawn Man's edit, I certainly wouldn't consider it vandalism. Perhaps you could find a less inflammatory word to use in your edit summary? Just a suggestion. Thanks! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 04:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing the source of a quote can transform a fair use quote into an ILLEGAL copyright violation punishable by a lawsuit. If that isn't vandalism, nothing is. WAS 4.250 05:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, that has nothing to do with vandalism. In general, and on Wikipedia specifically, vandalism usually connotes a destructive intention. Accidentally breaking a car window with an errant baseball would not be vandalism, while smashing it with your bat would. While I agree that the source should not have been removed, it was clearly not vandalism&mdash;he wasn't deliberately trying to cause difficulties for Wikipedia, and implying that others have bad intentions is needlessly causes ill will. The first sentence of Vandalism, which I have now properly sourced, summarizes nicely: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." Keep up your good work referencing articles, but perhaps it can be done without antagonizing others, especially if their efforts are misguided. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 05:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This was originally on Knowledge seeker's talk page:

Listen you little toad stool, (This is for Was4.250, not you Knowledge...), I am not a newbie as indicated by this statement, "His prior to that removal of sources was a newbie thing and"... I have worked on many articles before the dinosaur article & I have written at least one FA, of which you are complaining about. It was soooo bad it got bumped up the list & got featured on January 1st, 2006. If anything, you were the greatest problem! More than myself had a problem with you. This included many people on the Dinosaur talk page complaining about your narrow point of view. You set your mind & you don't let anyone else change it. For example, the opening. Everyone had a problem with the opening which you created. I had put a great opening & you reverted it many times, despite me trying to reach a middle ground! C'mon, Dinosaurs are vertebrate animals that range from reptile-like to bird-like. THAT IS NOT A FULL SENTENCE!!!!! It's rubbish. I suggested putting, range from reptile-like to bird-like in appearance. But you wouldn't have any of it! Plus, everyonbe disagreed with you on the are part! Everyone wanted were! But you, one person, who had done jack all to improve the article, over rid the main editor on the article, me, & did it your own way, even though it was in FAC! Infact, you hampered the improvements more than you helped! Your constant reverts & what I see as "newbie" things halted improvements to the article! For example, on the FAC, you can even check it if you don't believe me, one of the tasks was to make sure all the citations were the same style. I spent no less than 6 HOURS tiding up external links in the text, most of which were your doing, as I checked the history to see which pain in the ass had done it! I wasn't very surprised when I discovered it was you. The orders for this major revamp was given by a very influencial editor, nixie/petaholmes, who I supposed knew her stuff, & which you are now saying is wrong by not giving all one style. Now my example of a "newbie" thing is that, even after I told you several times, you still haven't learnt how to create a footnote & YOU'RE STILL PUTTING EXTERNAL LINKS IN THE TEXT! Now, if you say I'm a "newbie", & I know how to use footnotes, what does that make you if you can't even use them? A bigger "newbie"? I think so. So it doesn't matter that I, practically solely, got this article from a skeleton topic, into AID, into a FAC & onto the main page on 1st of January, but you still think my input is inferior to yours? Pah!!! Puhleeeease! And for the last time, I never put into the sourced sentence! Infact I actually deleted them because I had no idea what the heck they were! I never typed the word at all! Only when I put that it's a fact that the dinosaur article is actually a FA!!!!!! Not some stupid article, but a featured article! See this banner for example: featured See those words? "If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, please feel free to contribute". You compromise!!!! There should be a dinosaur ban on you!

Further more, this statement by nixie furthers that not just myself thinks footnotes should be used, "There is a mix of footnotes and harvard notes, references should be in a standard format throughout the article. And while on the references, WP:CITE states you should actively search for authoritative references to cite, so in an ideal world the primary research discussed in all the footnotes would actaully be listed, rather than (or in addition to) the regurgitated simplified media version.--nixie 11:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)" This was retrieved from the dinosaur FAC.

Another comment from the dinosaur FAC favouring footnotes & parenthetical citations over external links; "Note that when I say inline citation, I mean either footnote or parenthetical citation -- I believe that's common usage but I thought I'd be explicit. I say that because I'd like to see page numbers on those sources, if at all possible, and including them might look better if done in footnotes. In that case, the note itself might simply list the first author's last name and the page number, allowing the reader to refer to the references for the full bibliography (see welding, for example). --Spangineeres  (háblame)  01:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)".

Now as I said above, the dinosaur article is a FA. Now, this means that all edits should improve the article. I would expect you to agree with me here Knowledge seeker, but going against the flow, & putting an inline external link where all other external link sources are in the footnote section is going to make the article look disjointed at the least! I was not deleting the sources because I didn't believe them, but rather, I deleted them because I wanted you, Was 4.250, to put them under the footnotes section, so you would be such a "newbie" anymore! "Newbies" do that, not real editors. So saying that, "His prior to that removal of sources was a newbie thing and"... is absolutely wrong, as I was actually trying to get you to do something professional!

But as we speak, someone did the correct thing!!!!!! Loooooook!!!

Dinosaur history,

The thing which you were too lazy to attempt Was 4.250, someone else did!! So alas, you'll never learn anything because someone else did it for you. So mull over that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What I said was right, you were too lazy to do it!! SOOOOOOOO THERE@#!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAAAAA!

I want you to see this message everyday & see how you could have done things so much more simply by following what an older & wiser head said, (which is me by the way). I didn't want to quarrel or argue, just to maintain a sense of formality on the article. As I said above, you WAS 4.250, are yourself a compromise! Goodbye.... Spawn Man 22:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC) P.S., Never call me a "newbie" again....


 * wtf? is that the latest wikiscript instruction technique, or what? Sam Spade 22:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh? Spawn Man 22:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I myself am just getting used to wiki-footnotes. Your link was somewhat helpful in that regard. Your other comments however warrant a "wtf?" at best. Sam Spade 05:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Despite Spawn Mans, um, interesting way of explaining himself, I agree. Dinosaur became a featured article in part due to its uniform use of footnotes. WAS seems to have some kind of unexplained hostility towards to entire concept of footnotes, and his continued insertion of in-text links on the Dinosaur featured article... well, I don't want to accuse him of vandalism, but if it's not, why do people have to keep mopping up after him?Dinoguy2 16:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting huh? Anyway, at least someone half agrees with me. It was a real release being able to take it all out on WAS...... :) Spawn Man 01:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't mind Spawn Man. We are friends. But next time I get to have the "super galactic hyposuranimanation cardo-phosphate ray" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cheers. WAS 4.250

inalianable rights
Sorry if your edit was legitiment than go ahead and revert it back. (you won't start an edit war) if the edit was legit, than it is my mistake for reverting it. If that is the case, Sorry.
 * My Reasoning:  What was done looked like a vandal to me. If it was not I am really sorry. The revert was done while i was looking for vandals using cryptoderks vandal fighting program.
 * Eagle (talk) (desk) 20:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)  P.S. please leave me a message on my page in response.

Re: Grammar fascist
I'm sorry if I offended you in Kelly Martin's talk page. I was trying to inject a little humor into the discussion. I don't mind fixing other people's grammar that much, but I tend to prefer seeing it fixed. For me it isn't about acceptance or non-accemptance, but about working towards an ideal. Sorry again. Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 05:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Re Top level Evolution article
Good change on the disam page, think that makes matters clearer... No worries about the comment. Mikkerpikker 16:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC) (p.s. how do you feel about Slrubenstein's proposal (as ammended by Graft)? (see User:Mikkerpikker/Evolution for a very very rough go)

Gene flow issue
Hi, I've put two paragraphs on Talk:Evolution in response to your edit. You can think of the examples you gave as either selection at the haploid stage or sexual selection, whichever makes more sense to you. Gene flow is something that changes heterozygosity. That is how it is used in population genetics, which is a rigorous mathematical framework for understanding evolution. But do go see my comment. - Samsara 23:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar templates
Work continues on further templates. - RoyBoy 800 03:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool, will do; I'll add you to the templates currently underway. - RoyBoy 800 06:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. WAS 4.250 06:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Mixed economy
Hey man, just wondering why you changed rôle -> role ? the o-circumflex in this word is entirely acceptable in English as far as I was aware. Just giving you a heads up in case you didn't know. Or is there another reason for the change? If so, let me know on the article talk or my talk page. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 20:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, no problem :) We can leave it that way, probably would cause more problems than it would solve anyway! On my keyboard (in Linux) the default is to have diacritics mapped to Alt Gr + one of ; ' # [ ] = + letter. So rôle is typed as "r, Alt Gr + ' + o, l, e". I think you can do it in Windows by doing: Alt Gr + 244 (on numpad). You're right though, English does usually drop the diacritics, there are some words where its ok though, I'm not aware of a specific rule though. façade and résumé are others that have diacritics in. I just use them because they are among the rare occasions in English where I can use these cool characters :) - FrancisTyers 21:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the backup. I think you hit the nail on the head there --"mirror." RJII 06:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Secrecy
You said on a talk page:


 * But the "veil of secrecy" of things Asian will often confuse people into thinking something is OR or "new knowledge", because it may really bother them that they just can't get an English source or even a written source for X item. If Wikipedia continues to introduce Asia-centric articles as Asia becomes more prominient in world affairs, we'll see more and more instances of Wikipedia in some cases being the first or among the primary sources for a given item, because the veil is being lifted here even where English sources may not readily exist...but we shouldn't let that bother us. --Atrahasis 11:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you expand? I'm very curious. What is doing the veiling? What is being veiled? Could I please have: Thanks, WAS 4.250 13:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) some hand waving generalities so I have a clue to what you are talking about and what you are NOT talking about (social privacy, military security, asian v. western insecurity, etc.)
 * 2) a few pointed examples I can pin down for examination via Googling


 * Basically, I'm referring to the fact that many things Asian are still not well-known by the West or by Western knowledge. What is "doing the veiling", as you put it, is simply the fact that there are often scant English sources for Asian knowledge or things relevant to Asia, especially about things that require first-hand experiencing or intangible cultural items that can't be easily pinned down in the written form. An example would be knoweldge about how things are in a small town in some obscure region of somewhere in Asia, or things about a culture that are taboo to speak of even among the natives. Since the internet is a shallow resource, you obviously won't be able to get at what I mean exactly by Googling.
 * PS I like your pic on your user page, by the way. --Atrahasis 18:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)