User talk:Xiahou/Archive2

!


Your welcome. If you like, you can add an image or quote to my quilt (it's on my userpage). &gt;Kamope&lt;  Talk  ·  Sign Here  00:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm Sorry I was Bad
(Topic, ill be gud 2 u from now on, <3)

From a school IP

 * Listen, this is a school's ip address, i have no control over what goes on, and i apologize for whatever inconvience happens to you, but it isnt from me.--24.125.0.232 03:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you had control, but users of this IP and judging by their usage here almost every edit from this IP has been vandalism with a talk page full of warnings. So if you don't want to 'share the blame' the simple solution would be to register a username and avoid all the problems of sharing a heavily vandalized anon. IP. I understand it can be frustrating to see a page of the IP you are using to have warnings for things you never did, but as I suggested just get a username and it won't be an issue. --Xiahou 07:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage! Will (aka Wimt ) 11:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem I am sure sometime you will end up returning the favor the way things work around here. --Xiahou 22:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Eddie Fatu
The Eddie Fatu article fails to meet any criteria for speedy deletion. The tag being placed there is vandalism in itself. B mg 9 1 6  Speak to Me 02:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea I see that its being vandalised as fast as I can rv back to something--Xiahou 02:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for dealing with 71.125.24.180, assuming good faith and not losing your cool. Kntrabssi 00:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * no problem. He came across as a little lost vandal. Don't think he realized all the ways of seeing what people do on wiki. Hopefully he turns it around eventually and becomes a constructive memeber. --Xiahou 00:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia moderator pushing POV
Greetings Xiahou.

To be brief, the reason I posted that addition in the "transformers(2007)" entry is because - point blank - I am sick and tired of only showing one side in regards to this movie. The links to forums for Don Murphy and Mike Bay are heavily biased, and they tend to delete/ban anyone who do not think as they do. I added a link to a forum for those who don't buy the hype - Smegatron deleted it. So I removed the links to the biased forums - Smegatron restored them. That eaddition was an attempt to get him to act a little more responsibly & honestly, since It seems that he (Smegatron) is hell bent on pushing his beliefs instead of either presenting all the facts or removing Biased POVs.

I would request that you remove the links to those forums from that entry - leaving the movie website link & the IMDB link. Maybe if one of his fellow moderators takes a stand against the POV issue in that entry, he'll quit pushing(Hey, one can allways hope. ;)

Gynsu


 * I would discuss it on the talk page of the article its what its for []

As far as them putting in the offical producer and official directors site. Seems obvious not POV. If the content of those sites is your issue like I said take it up on the talk page. Otherwise having a director and producers offical site linked makes sense. Sorry.--Xiahou 00:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry about that editing
hey man, sorry about the mix ups with the editing. It was I who edited stoner, because when i went to the article, there was just one sentence saying something stupid like "Stoner- someone who gets fuckin' high on weed hell ya." it was something like that. i just changed it to say something like, A user of Marijuana, you know, just to clean it up, i assumed there wasn't an actual article of stoner at that point. however i just checked and there was. As for "candy" that was my stupid little sister, i told her not to edit whatever she did. so yea, i use wiki all the time, don't block my ip, so yea, sorry man. pibwiki 01:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * just log in to make changes shouldn't be a problem. Your user name has a clean record. Don't know if the IP gets blocked will stop the username. It may I suppose if using same IP to login. Don't know the ages of you or your sister but you may just mention to your parents/guardians to keep her off it for this very reason. --Xiahou 01:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

reverts by you
Is it really neccessary to keep reverting my page? I get the message. Please stop.


 * Actually yes its completely necessary to leave up your current vandalism warnings so no WE won't stop. But you can stop being a vandal and be constructive. --Xiahou 23:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've stopped. How bout enough.
 * enough what?, also please sign with the 4 ~ when you post on a page. --Xiahou 23:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's really not neccessary to copy the conversation to my talk page. So please stop. I'm leaving the other ones up.71.126.73.203 23:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * thats great but you were also warned about blanking pages and that to needs to stay so...--Xiahou 23:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm removing your personal comments. I'm leaving the warnings.
 * ok you got it now.--Xiahou 23:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding User:67.33.132.26: Biting the newbies is not acceptable.
While the IP did make a series of personal attacks, skipping straight to a level 3 template is the very definition of biting the newbies. Please be more careful next time and work your way upwards from lower level warnings. -Wooty Woot? contribs 04:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea sure, [] oh yea I was to harsh he was such a nice IP. He had 6 vandal edits in a row by the time I gave him his first and he kept going and going and going after that. Currently blocked for a week so, NO. If anything I gave him his much deserved first 'nip' let alone a bite. --Xiahou 22:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Wooty's point was that the IP still isn't famillier with Wikipedia or it's policies, and thus should receive lower level warnings before a last one, except in unusal circumstances. The worst of what I saw in the history of contributions from this IP were profanity and page blanking.--User: (talk • contribs) 23:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * so on a completely unrelated IP he would have a point but in using this one as an example he has no point...ok? This IP as you stated yourself had page blankings, obscene statements. Are we to wait till we recieve some kind of conformation that they have read the myriad of WP: This and That on everything wikipedia policies? You get a warning not to do something multiple times after the fact of the original 6 in question thats more than plenty chances. They were blocked for a week. Now a first timer usually gets less so this says the blocker to saw how much vandalism they did. I started on level 3 after 6 vandal edits in a row. They continued MANY times after this including well past final warning. Wiki has a warning template for vandals that says "Only warning" how is this any different? I am not going to be blamed for biting when i nipped someone who needed to be & eventually was blocked. --Xiahou 00:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Based on this message, I was conviced that WP:BITE and WP:AGF had to be followed strictly. I'm justing trying to follow the rules, but I'm confused, now.--User: (talk • contribs) 00:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's my take. Blatant vandalism is blatant vandalism. I agree with Xiahou. No coddling to such antisocial behavior. We don't have to be and shouldn't be nice to those who so blatantly violate Wikipedia standards. This stuff isn't an accident. It's intentional, in-your-face violations. But of course, that's just my opinion. Catbar 00:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (typed before Catbar's take) rather than just posting a link like its all emcompassing to what happend specifically show where either was violated. No reason to assume good faith after someone says "F-You" in their edit multiple times. Good faith is just that maybe someone oops'ed it happens. Sure but saying F-You over and over in a summary -- no, no faith there. Strictly? Look around. Plenty of times a vandal goes unwarned gets out of hand and gets one "Your only warning" template. I belive in giving the benfit of the doubt aka good faith, but also I believe in common sense and when a IP does what this one did and seeing that they later got a 1 week block for themselves. I don't need to further explain it, it spells itself out. --Xiahou 00:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * From WP:BITE: "Remember Hanlon's Razor. Behavior that appears malicious to experienced Wikipedians is more likely due to ignorance of our expectations and rules. Even if you're 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good, internet troll, a vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they're not. By being calm, interested, and respectful, your dignity is augmented, and you further our project.". I don't really care how malicious the vandal is. Telling them it's their "last warning" when you never gave them a previous warning is definitely not what we do here. This situation is exactly what is made for. Slapping on confusing warning templates out of process and out of order is confusing to blocking admins, feeding the troll/vandal, and destructive to good faith editors. End of story. -Wooty Woot? contribs 00:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * you missed it though read your own quote "Telling them it's their "last warning" Didn't do that. So for all their early vandalism you want me to give them a "gee I wonder if when you wrote F-You over and over in your summary you were just confused" Hey I got a plan worry about the actual vandals instead of those trying to plug the holes in the dam. Ive missed dozens of vandalism defending a pointless point that a vandal who ended up being worse then when I left him and got blocked for a week your worried that my jumping in after he had over and over. Feel free to look at the talk pages of some of the more vicious, obscene, horrid vandals and you won't see any "gee I hope Iam not biting you when you said "kill the jews" maybe you are just experimenting." no any malicious, hate inciting, vandalism doesn't and will never get "test" templates. Nor will F-this and F-that multiple times. Hey like I said wiki has and no one has objected to the "only warning" templates. Would it have chapped you had I used that. Technically its well within my means. But no I took actually a lower one. If "only warnings" are so wrong they would not be allowed as templates. So please let me get back to actually stopping vandalism and not worrying about a week long blocked vandal who did nothing for wiki but cause trouble and I called him on it. Oh the shame. --Xiahou 00:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I know I was the one who just asked to let this die but I had to put this quote from the template page "There are several templates used to warn vandals. They are listed at right in order of severity, but need not be used in succession. Though some people vandalizing are incorrigible returning vandals and may be blocked quickly" But I had to put it since basically with this I think the issue can be put to rest now. --Xiahou 00:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OMG!
Dude, I was making Fan-Fiction!! MMV4FF stood for Micro Machines V4 Fan Fiction!! GOD! Did you even read the page?{fsh}Nemo 02:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * yea uh huh and is wiki the place for that...no. So it was tagged for Speedy Delete and the powers that be agreed with me and so it was deleted. Your point is what now? --Xiahou 02:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page) Dude, I was making Fan-Fiction!! MMV4FF stood for Micro Machines V4 Fan Fiction!! GOD! Did you even read the page?{fsh}Nemo 02:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * yea uh huh and is wiki the place for that...no. So it was tagged for Speedy Delete and the powers that be agreed with me and so it was deleted. Your point is what now? --Xiahou 02:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK... so I didn't know! WTF! I'm 10 years old for a n00b's sake!{fsh}Nemo 02:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not continue to bite the newbies, make personal attacks, and assume bad faith, Xiahou. This could be easily resolved by cutting out the personal attacks and giving the user an appropriate welcome template, which I have done. -Wooty Woot? contribs 02:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wooty go away. No really, please do. If I burned you on the above arugment with the whole "templates don't need to be given in order" quote. Now your going to lurk my every move. Good Lord why don't you take a pill of your own advice and assume good faith. Once again your about six degrees away from the point. Could I come on your page and go "Dude, OMG blah blah blah like why did you delete my page" It could also be resolved by the fact that I was typing in a welcome page and your edit butted in. So assume good faith Wooty your 2 steps behind in assuming I wasn't doing that. --Xiahou 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * personal attacks? what? you do know that wiki keeps track of everything so Its not like I added it and took it out. So where is it? Ive got you claiming Iam biting people Ive got him putting WTF on my page and dude why did you delete my nonsense page. And me trying to make some sence of what he is trying to say. And I am the one "personal attacking." how broad a definition of that word to you use? --Xiahou 03:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not lurking your "every move", I checked back and noticed you being uncivil for absolutely no reason. "yea uh huh and is wiki the place for that...no" is condescending and rude. "Your point is what now?" is also. You've attacked me, though, and so I'm definitely going to be watching this talk page to make sure you don't do so to anyone else. I'll assume good faith when you decide to follow policies pointed out to you twice by now. If you wanted to complain about deletion of pages, go ahead. I'll point you to the policies. If my "edit butted in", I would have ran into an edit conflict. Please start being civil to me and especially other users (even vandals) or I'll be forced to report you to AI or PAIN. -Wooty Woot? contribs 05:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Personal attack? this is text right? so I look above and see nothing saying anything directed at you as an attack. I am trying to see it assuming the worst adding tone and inflection where it isn't intended and I still don't see it. I really don't get you at all? uncivil? you can read tone in text? Thats amazing, I just can't seem to be able to do it. If you read it I was confused by what his point was? Try it with the assumption of *gasp* good faith of the editor confused by what the person is asking. I could barely read it with the OMGs and all that. And again you are really not reading what I am typing. 'I' ran into the edit conflict. Why would you? yours came in first as in we were typing at same time and you sumbitted first it happens all the time with rv's and undos. You policies that you pointed out were shot down on the template page so again I ask what you are trying to get at. I am out here trying to clean up vandalism and you are worried about vandals and trolls getting their feelings hurt by getting a deserved warning. Feel free to quote me where I was being 'uncivil' and not being a wiki acronymn poster and actually point out exactly where the problem lies. I know its taboo to say 'forum cop' but to use it as an analogy I am trying to clean things up and you are worried the caught confessed red handed fugtive has had a snack and warm pillow. Like I said rather than waste time here claming (though you've yet to point out where) that I am giving off certain 'tones' of being rude by me saying I am confused by what someone was getting at? (how you can twist me not understanding to being rude by somehow adding emotional tone to a text statement is beyond me) You could also be out there doing something about the vandalism rather than complain about the way others don't do it you what you cite as policy yet as I again point out to you right there on the template page it says they do NOT have to be given in order the original thing that brought you here has been laid to rest. So once again I ask to let this die. Please stop general posting of a policy link without actually taking the time to show what was wrong. Please stop ingoring the fact that original argument is done and over and with my quoting of the template page you argument is delfated. Please join us, help out against vandalism which is ruining the very fabric and reputation of wiki rather than worry about obscene, vulgar, racial, vandals getting what you deem appropriate warnings. Please stop reading 'tone' and feelings into text where there is none, or if there is the wrong one. You assumed I was being rude and condensending and I was being confused. As in "yea uh huh and is wiki the place for that...no. So it was tagged for Speedy Delete and the powers that be agreed with me and so it was deleted. Your point is what now" so I typed "yea uh huh" as in I don't get what you are saying. Then "is wiki the place for that...no" as in asking if wiki is the place for fan fiction. I answered no. So far where is the rude part? First I was confused by what he was asking then I asked nicely is this the place for that. Rude would be "are you crazy wiki isn't for fan fiction, grow up" I didn't do this. I was civil. So again we have you inserting your own interpritation of the tone I intended. And if anyone is to know the tone intended, its me. And the tone and emotion I intended was fist of confusion then of asking and answering a question of why. Then I say "So it was tagged for Speedy Delete and the powers that be agreed with me and so it was deleted. Your point is what now" So the first part I tell him it was tagged and then someone with the power to delete, deleted it. Not me. Again I directly answered the question what I thought he asked. Rude would have been, "pointless fan fiction page, you should know better" I didn't do this so where is the uncivil part? "You point is what now?" as in I don't know in the end of it all what he's asking me. Is he asking why did I delete it (I didn't as explained) is he asking me why I didn't like it (Didn't like or dislike it wasn't a wiki page) So I asked in plain english "what is your point now" as in "I hope I answered what you wanted becasue I don't know where to take it from here, if there was another answer you were after". Again, unless you assume something else was 'hidden' in the text I stil don't see this so called uncivil etc etc you say is there. Again if its there I don't see it, nor did I try to hide it. Its text. So really again, try not to look for the bad, assume the worst, put in emotion, tone whatever into what someone types maybe just maybe they know what they meant and put better than you. Because if anyone is going to know the intent of the writer, its the writer. The reader interprets, and they can and were here, wrong.

In conclusion, feel free to let this die, go away, do whatever it is long drawn out pointless debates do and lets get back to actually doing something constructive for wiki. --Xiahou 15:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I read the personal attack page and no, its not there.
Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse. Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. Threats of legal action Threats of violence, particularly death threats. Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages. Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery. Admins applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee of what they have done and why. Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into Wikipedia discussion, including the suggestion that such a link applies to another editor, or that another editor needs to visit the external source containing the substance of the attack. These examples are not inclusive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.

The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia. -- Nope, none of those apply to whats been said. "Wikipedia discussions are in a text-only medium that conveys nuances and emotions poorly; this can easily lead to misunderstanding" which seems to be quite the case here. "continue to focus their efforts on improving and developing the encyclopedia. " Key point here "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks"

So please stop saying by assuming emotion, tone, of my text. I was civil, quite level headed and stress free when posting. I broke it down sentence by sentence what was written and what was meant. I honestly don't know why this keeps going. I am a wiki RC patroler. I take pride in it. I enjoy it. In the time you first posted here you've done a few things mostly complain on here. In that time. I stopped dozens of vandals. Some getting test warnings some getting higher depending on the type of vandalism. I am being as constuctive as I can. So please no more saying any time you don't seem to like the tone you assume I am making its a personal attack. Ive read the page, again. Ive quoted parts here, there is nothing thats been said that can be twisted, assumed, or changed to be a personal attack on you or any other editor involved. I ask you to just let this die. It looks good for both of us if you do. No need for apology, reply, rebuttal. It comes down to this. Issue 1 - originally you didn't like that I gave a vandal a level 3. You quoted some policy, later I did that said you don't need to put it in order especially for vandals like the one in question. That should have ended that. Issue 2 - apparenty child by admitted age makes a non wiki page. I speedy delete tag it. Later its deleted by someone else. Said child complains to me. I am confused and reply (see above). You come back saying I handled it wrong and should add a welcome page (which I was typing with extra and got an edit conflict with yours) But then claims of uncivil etc popped up. I showed there was none. Then claims of personal attack. As seen above by quoting the personal attack page and reviewing the text above. There was none. So let it go. --Xiahou 15:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Black Falcon
No problem. When I'm doing RC patrol (not very often), I usually check back in the edit history for 2 or 3 edits (unless, of course, I recognise the editor). It makes me a little slower in checking recent changes but, then again, slower equates to less hectic. Cheers, Black Falcon 00:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

why not?
what's wrong with it?70.126.190.77 01:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * its rude, denotes a personal attack calling someone retarded. Along with the use of F---. in a warning which is completely unnecessary. Here is a helpful link on warning templates [] --Xiahou 01:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe.
I believe you told user: Sratneshwaran that his removal of web-links and changes to Swadhyay Parivar was wrong and you reverted them. There is no reversal. Could you pl. do so? swadhyayee 14:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Missed RV
Thanks for the message. I was trying to revert vandalism, but reverted to the wrong page! Happy vandal hunting! Torontothegood 02:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * yea I went and looked way back. Seems a bot and you kept missing RV's on vandals so it all got mixed up. Took the warnings off. We all miss undo/rv sometimes. --Xiahou 02:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll figure it out eventually. Thanks for removing the warnings.  Torontothegood 02:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Milan Lukic article
Hello, Xiahou. I've just posted this at the Milan Lukic Discussion page - your comments would be welcome.

"I know the question of how Bosniaks should be referred to is a sensitive one. But when a particular term is used in an authoritative source - such as the identity used in the census or the designation used in ICTY judgments - then my view is that it's better not to make ad-hoc changes.  At the very least it makes for difficulties in cross-referencing.  However where the reference is a general one and not linked to a source, then, in the absence of a very good reason, the term Bosniak should be used." --Opbeith 09:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with that and just the pure simple fact a religious designation isn't an ethnic designation. At least in this case for sure. I was just a passing RC patroller, but it's on my watch list now so I'll take a look when changes show up and check out the discussion page. --Xiahou 23:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

User page
Thanks for the revert. I really thought my fishy friend was gone. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * sure no problem. The way things (sadly) work around here you will probably end up returning the favor. See you around --Xiahou 23:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Qxz
I don't really know, my interactions with Qxz were limited to acting on his/her WP:AIV posts. It appears that Qxz just burned out. Dealing with vandalism and inane user requests can get quite exhausting after a while, so the departure isn't all that surprising. Quite a shame though, Qxz was an immensely productive and considerate contributor. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * yes he seemed very productive. Many many times did he beat me to the draw undoing vandalism. I guess he may have taken it to seriously. I gotta laugh at times at all the insanity I see on here. That seems to shed some light on it. Thanks. --Xiahou 00:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, as long as you're willing to pick up the slack :) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * this would be a dream job if I was getting paid for it. I'll do what I can when I can. Thanks.

--Xiahou 00:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandal Patrol
I noticed that you reverted vandalism on my userpage and I feel that I should thank you!! (I accidentally thought that you were Xaosflux, so sorry that I was late in apologizing ;-) ~ St ep tr ip   00:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * my pleasure. --Xiahou 00:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warning template
Xiahou, could you tell me what template you used on this page to create that nice, bright vandalism warning? Thanks! -- Semper discipulus 01:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * sure its    subst:Non-admin fwarn     with {{  on both sides. --Xiahou 01:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Template links
Just FYI, but I noticed you left a comment on Mtmelendez's talk page explaining a template. You typed the template name by itself, with a reminder to add the curly brackets. A more useful way to display templates is to type " " just before the template, like so:, which appears as Non-admin fwarn. " " is actually just another template, tl. -- Tewy  06:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Swadhyay page Vandalism
There seems to be a user called "Sratneshwaran" who keeps putting in the right content but there seems to be others who are vandalizing and adding complete garbage into the description and links for "Swadhyay Parivar". We have to make sure that that the right content goes into Wikipedia and not completely useless material which obviates the use of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.125.71.151 (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC).
 * You don't say. Being that he's blocked and the only one doing that and suddenly an IP takes over his cause one would tend to think you are Sratneshwaran. I don't know I can't check user. But regardless. Wiki mentions large changes like the ones you two (or one) are making should be discussed on the talk page. The talk page concensus you can see by looking is to leave it. Sratneshwaran was blocked by admins for his blanking. Blanking is vandalism. If you claim that you two (one)'s point is valid then discuss it per as is the norm on wiki on the articles talk page and cite and show where the problem lies. As I told another confused editor. I am not involved in the issue. Nor do I even know how to pronocunce the issue. I don't know which side is stating fact over fiction. I am just following wiki procedures and policies on blanking entire sections. Many editors including admins have reverted this same change over and over and over. There is a talk page concensus on this issue. So please if you are Sratneshwaran or not discuss this change on the talk page. Conintual uncited blankings of cite tags, entire sections. IS vandalism. --Xiahou 15:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

swadhyay
The article has been protected by an admin after being the victim of a massive edit war. I have started a discussion at Talk:Swadhyay_Parivar and I hope you will join me in attempting to reach a consensus on the article. Thank you. Baka man  03:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Accidental add
In response to your post on my discussion page, I added it right after you added yours. Never saw yours, and didn't look back at the page. Not on purpose--Ssault 02:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * no biggie. I noticed your contributions after and figured you knew where it was at. It all worked out for good though. Thanks again. --Xiahou 02:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

90.240.189.214
I would tag them with something or other, although at the rate that particular user is going through IPs, it wouldn't matter -- they're using multiple ISPs, all with dynamic IP addresses. Could be one persistent troll, or a group. Could sit there blocking individual IPs all day, and they wouldn't run out, so protection is probably the best option in those cases, when it'll work. – Luna Santin  (talk) 07:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * gotcha, learn something new everyday. Thanks.--Xiahou 21:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I NEVER MEANT ANYHING BADD
dear user, i never ment vandalism! i was just acting a little silly. I was bored because i just found out you could edit pages! SORRY--70.153.217.171 23:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * if your feeling 'silly' then use the wikipedia sandbox [] to mess around in not the actual articles. Bored or not its vandalism and looking at your history [] Its all you have done. --Xiahou 23:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice Reaction time.
I was about to warn 69.124.145.77, as he vandalised Jack Bauers page (though I'm not an admin). You though, responded in approximately 3 minutes. Nice job, my friend. Nice job. Mattbash 00:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello again
I couldn't help but notice your comment "Nietzsche is dead" -God. My father (Chris Bashore) said he found that written on a wall at the University of Michigan under the phrase "God is dead" -Nietzsche. Did you see that quote, or make it up yourself? Mattbash 00:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Its one of those old quotes that makes the rounds. Personally think its great. --Xiahou 00:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply
I posted expansion ideas on the talk page of Big Top Pee-wee. RobJ1981 20:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks. I also though maybe I could find box office returns for it to. --Xiahou 21:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply
No it's not made up!
 * just going by past record. The notability factor isn't there though. Its not going to last, sorry. Hey I am an inclusionist. But 2 guys making a t-shirt isn't an encyclopdia entry. --Xiahou 22:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

86.137.215.146 on AIV
I have removed your report of to WP:AIV because it is not clear spamming and they appear to be attempting to edit the article constructively. Please discuss proposed changes with them on the article's talk page. &mdash;dgies tc 23:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * excuse me, I came in late on this but he kept putting a spam link in according to other editors and bots over and over. I caught the last one past final warning. As for his being constructive this is after the fact now. Whats to discuss if he puts in the spam links its again past final warning? --Xiahou 23:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a great link, but it is related. Since you obviously don't agree with it, he should make his case on the article talk page before re-adding it.  Not all external links are bad, they just have to comply with the external link policy. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt because he seems to be making an attempt to discuss it.  &mdash;dgies tc 00:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[] the links fit # 5,11, I don't know I come into it late like I said and I see an IP putting in links that other editors and a bot say are spam and he's been warned I called it as I saw it. I'll just back out of it for now. I am not here for the issue just RC patrolling. Those directly involved knowing why they say its spam and the discussion its for them, I am going back to RC and newpages patrol.--Xiahou 00:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Blitblit16
OK, I see what you mean. Warnings removed. Cheers, ArchStanton 22:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed he is on AIV to can you quick take that off. Hate to see the kid get blocked if he was trying, just in an odd way. Thanks--Xiahou 22:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I got it --Xiahou 22:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks on wingman
Thanks for filling in the wingman page, Mack is an author that I never grew out of, and never tire of rereading. I think it is the anti tom clancy novelist, just a good fun yarn that at the end is more memorable. Jwkane 00:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * no problem. Ive been meaning to make an article for it. Now's a good a time as any. I don't know how to make infoboxes though. I am sure there is an 'offical one' for authors. I will add what I can for now and myself, you and others will hopefully tweak it to look better. Thanks again. --Xiahou 00:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean though. Its so cheesy at times its good. If they ever made a movie it would be straight to dvd with lots of bad cg effects. But I still pick them up and re-read them years later. I am over 30 and still read the first ones I got when I was a teen. Only missing a couple to have whole series --Xiahou 00:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Tremewanbill
Would it kill you to write me a personal message, instead of a routene auto-responce Tremewanbill 02:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * no, but it serves the purpose quite nice for the page in question --Xiahou 02:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

betrayal
SORRY about that copy paste thing i deleted the summary i just wanted to do something i don know nice and i love star wars. so i am sorry and oh by the way tales of silo is not nonsense from garzane
 * 0 google hits on the name, authors name gets 4 hits and he's not an author...may not be nonsense but Iam betting its made up. which with the tags available that = nonsense. As far as the Star Wars thing. No big deal why it was a suggestion. Someone else would have come down hard on that. Its a taboo thing on wiki dealing with copyright as you saw by the link.

If you really say the silo thing isnt you better try to clean it up and cite where the info comes from. --Xiahou 02:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I owe a serious apology.
I owe you a serious apology for suspecting you to be sock-puppet of some other editor who vandaled Swadhay Parivar page. I saw your message of 31/3 on my talk page today only.

Since, you do not know the subject, I believe, you might have un-knowingly supported vandal by voluminous reversions which made me feel that you are sock-puppet. I realized later on that you were a neutral editor working for Wikipedia and had no motivated interest in editing "Swadhyay Parivar". I am sorry, I did not apologise before you put a message on 31/3 on my talk page.

Pl. bear with me and accept my apologies to wrongly assume your position and hurt you.

Shaionara 05:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * no problem, no harm no foul. Thanks for the honesty. --Xiahou 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Jose Fernandes Jr
Am I missing something? This page, which you have flagged for speedy is a userpage.--Anthony.bradbury 23:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea last week they had it as a page that was deleted it came up on the watch list...nevermind someone got it. --Xiahou 23:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Dancingthenightaway
I would not go out on a linb asnd say you were wrong, but he has not been blocked before. I tend to assume that giving these idiots at least one chance is in the spirit of Wikipedia; I could be wrong. The point is, if he comes back vandalising, he's dead. I am here every day.--Anthony.bradbury 00:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I like your attitude (really) and reply. No problem. Just never seen it but you reallly seem on top of it. Cool. Thanks. --Xiahou 00:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Changing the subject slightly, when were you thinking of applying for adminship? Serious question, no bull***t.--Anthony.bradbury 00:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't push for it myself, don't like to toot my own horn. Ive flew pretty low under the radar so far. Ive glanced and the procedings a few times to see what people go through to get it. Looking at my record I'd get allot of 'don't know about admin buttons' 'not long enough experience' Personally I'd really like to just for the RC patrol and cleaning out vandals and bad newpages. I'd have to research the powers/responsibilities more so I'd know in entirety what it entails. --Xiahou 00:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * that and the whole looking at you with a microscope thing. Wonder what others would see that I don't. Eek.:-)--Xiahou 00:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Uploadz - from cimt
Hi, when I added this page I was intending to add content. Uploadz is a popular uploading site. The reason it was blank was because I was waiting for the owner to get online to give me info about it. I will now wait till he gets online before adding it. Is that ok? Will I be able to add it again once I've got all the info? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cimt (talk • contribs) 20:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Yes waiting till you have content for an article is the norm. If you add it again and have content there should not be a problem. Is it notable enough? I don't know read up on Wikipedia:Notability []. I'll also add a welcome template with some helpful stuff to your talk page. --Xiahou 22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

He did it again
User talk:203.10.121.85 vandalised the Rugby League State of Origin page again. Time to go?--Jeff79 22:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange Edits
Hey, so given the large number of talks on your talk page I'm just going to assume your a relatively expierienced editor - but I'd like to know what was going on with this edit. Did you just put that on the wrong page? daniel folsom   ©  00:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I see what I did. I hit edit on User talk:Spec Ops94 top of page to edit the section to add the warning and it brought up the template edit not edit for User talk:Spec Ops94. You got it fixed no harm no foul. Thanks --Xiahou 00:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ya no big deal - just got me a bit suspicious. I for one generally respond on other peoples talk page - just because they'll get the "new message" thing. I would say that a majority probably does that - but there are still quite a few who reply on their own talk page. daniel folsom    ©  02:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome
Your comments and thanks are well received. It looks like you're a sophisticated Wikipedan and offer a lot to this great project. The rationale on the "Speculation and gossip" section to the Grace Kelly page was to admit that such information was relevant to her personage, but to call it what it is--speculation and gossip. So many people have trouble classifying that kind of stuff! Continued success to you. Ermorse 23:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

warnings
If you think I'm wrong I invite you to take it to the administrator's noticeboard - I'm sure you'll find the consensus is quite as I described it. Natalie 01:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

huh? what are you talking about? What concensus are you talking about? I thought the discussion was about - [] and [] which is the link I used on the talk page with the infamous 'frowned apon'. The lack of concensus referred to was []at the top says "This proposal was rejected by the community. It has not gained consensus" Right and wrong I have no idea what you are referring to? I am going to need more of a link than the entire noticeboard page. I don't even know what to look for there. Honestly I don't know what you mean. As stated above. Yes he can delete the warnings, the ip and I went back and forth after I laid it all out in the last paragraph on the ip's page i posted I did not put them back in. As stated above the issue was over. And after the fact you came in and said "he is correct" ok... thats great by not putting back in the warnings and myself agreeing before the fact he could wouldn't that mean I already knew this. I really don't want to get into anything about this. This is another failure of wiki policy that has a huge and ever growing loophole which allows, for now, vandals to blank the warnings. For now as seen in the posted links there is no concensus. I fail to see where I need to be invited to see something is going to change anything. I thought the issue was done. So please no animosity intended, no anger, no sarcasm (text is horrible at showing this when not intended you can't see a persons face and hear the tone) Thanks again for your time. --Xiahou 01:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't intending to jump into something, but I kept seeing that talk page on recent changes. The reason I suggested the administrator's noticeboard is that this question comes up there quite a bit - users frequently report other users for removing warnings from their talk page. I understand your feelings about the warnings (I actually share them) but it does seem like not the best thing to edit war over. But my apologies if it felt like I was invading a discussion that had concluded. Natalie 02:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the heads up. When I see blanked pages, I replace them because they are blanked. I didn't think about it! Mawfive 01:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I will try
I'm new at editing pages for more than grammar so I'll work on the war czar page a little more. That was really just a dry run of trying to get the page to work and a good start for me. I'll work on it more later. Danhoyt

Re: Deleting warnings
(Cross-posted on my Talk page) Any time! As much as I'd like to see some sort of policy change, in the link I posted, there were some pretty convincing arguments against. Over the years, it's been attempted again and again to make some sort of rule to that effect, but it's always been rejected. As much as I would love to see it change, it doesn't seem likely to happen. Cheers! -Etafly 19:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * POSTSCRIPT:I usually reply to received messages on my own Talk page, but I'm not sure about usertalk convention, so I'll post this here too.

Welcome revert
Thanks for reverting the vandalism in my user page - Skysmith 08:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

James Stewart talk page comments
I have noted thatGibsonism has made some accusations that another editor is "racist" resulting in the following ommnet that I posted on his talk page. There are "five pillars" of Wikipedia contributions. Briefly (or not so briefly), they are: In reviewing your latest comments and earlier submissions, it is evident that you are not acting in good faith as a Wikipedian. You have contravened all five general "guides" to conduct. Treat this comment as a well-meaning yet illustrative request to adhere to the tenets of this forum. Calling people names is unconscionable and will result in administrative consequences to limit or deny you rights to edit Wikipedia. I do not think that these comments will stop him/her and I believe it will likely result in an edit war. Be prepared, I will call on you for support in this case.Bzuk 12:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of encyclopedias, striving for accuracy with "no original research."
 * Wikipedia has a "neutral point of view," advocating no single point of view, presenting each point of view accurately and providing context, citing verifiable, authoritative sources.
 * Wikipedia is free content anyone may edit and no individual controls any specific article.
 * Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general "pillars."
 * Wikipedia has a code of conduct:
 * Respect your fellow Wikipedians
 * Be civil
 * Be open and welcoming
 * Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations
 * Stay cool when the editing gets hot
 * Avoid edit wars
 * Act in good faith and assume good faith on the part of others
 * Follow the three-revert rule
 * Never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

're welcome
You're welcome. What you did was using (( instead of {{ one time, Easy mistake to make. And yes, it does look kind of obvious. I haven't looked at the whole story but I did noticed some weird, to say midly, comments from one of the suspects, user:HarveyCarter. Garion96 (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks
for the welcome and the help on wiki stuff! Lots to learn... Ekrekr 00:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up
Someone got them before I could, but thanks for noticing. Georgewilliamherbert 02:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sockpuppet question
Xiahou, that's right--you should have entered "HarveyCarter (2nd)" in the text box to create the new case; if you have to report him again, just enter "HarveyCarter (3rd)", and so on. The instructions are pretty confusing, I think, but fortunately it's not to hard to fix any problems that crop up due to misnamed cases. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandal
(No, not you)

That one whom you just reported I did block indefinitely. The previous one whom we discussed came back after my 48-hour block, vandalised and got an indefblock. I thought this time I would cut out the middle-man.--Anthony.bradbury 22:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper source
A friend of mine is doing an article on Wikipedia for the University of Kansas' University Daily Kansan and is looking for someone who edits and works on Wikipedia all the time. I told him I do, but he wants someone who does more than correct grammar. Xiahou, since you are really involved in Wikipedia I was hoping you would e-mail him so he could set up an interview. His name is Luke Morris his e-mail is Lmorris@ku.edu. He is a sophomore at KU. Danhoyt

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

I've made some changes to the WP Christianity main project page, added several sup-project pages, created a few task forces section, and proposed several more possible changes so that we can really start making some serious progress on the project. Please stop by and see my comments on the project talk page here and consider joining a task force or helping out with improving and contributing to our sub-projects. Thanks for your time! Nswinton 13:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln photo
Lincoln's second inaugural address -The Mystery Man

Thanks --Xiahou 00:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Technically, one confirmed sock will suffice. —210physicq  (c ) 01:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Any editor can slap on the template, but be sure that the socks are confirmed. —210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">c ) 01:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

yes
it was not made up. i am very handsome and quick at that. i will admit that it was an opinion and i appologize for that. thank you for removing it. but you don't have to pick on my stories. please stop trying to gang up on me. user:Campbelltp27 Copied from archive, they placed in wrong spot)

Farafina
Your recent action in instantly deleting the newly created article about the African music group Farafina, was uncivilized and uncalled for. Please restore the article immediately. It takes more than 25 seconds (the length of time before you deleted the article I began), on the most important musical and internationally regarded group of the nation of Burkina Faso, to get an article up to perfection. I am continually adding to it (next to add a discography, more sources, and lists of their international performances). They certainly meet WP's music group notability guidelines, by far. I think you'll find, if you do a search of my contributions, that I am a productive contributor to Wikipeida. Indeed, I have never experienced such treatment here!

I'm giving you five minutes. Badagnani 23:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My reply

Do NOT tell someone they are being 'uncivilized' and you definetly do NOT say to someone on wiki 'I'm giving you five minutes' get your facts straight. I tagged the article while nothing of notability was showing. Someone else did the deletion. Why don't you check the deletion log for the page. You will see another name there. You can ask them. But I would recomend using a much more civil words with them being that if they deleted it they are an admin. I am not going to give you five minutes I am going to give you all the time in the world to realize you jumped the gun on the wrong guy. I saw an article with no links nothing showing notability. I tagged it for speedy delete band. Next time research it before you start calling people uncivillized. --Xiahou 23:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Here let me help you here is the deletion log - [] like I said you may want to try a different tone of words with them. --Xiahou 23:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It is always wrong, and rude to other editors, to tag a page after less than one minute, especially when it is easy to Google this group and determine that it is the most notable musical group from Burkina Faso. The source included in the page did have a lot of information showing the group's notability. You did make a mistake and your own tone leaves quite a bit to be desired. Please restore the page immediately. Badagnani 23:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My reply

What part of this are you not getting? I can't restore it I didn't delete it. Its not up to me to google the band its up to the editor to provide the information in the article. You really need to do some heavy reading in [] Wikipedia:Civility, enough with time limit hollow threats, calling people rude etc. You know it would have been rather simple on your part to actually provide notability information in a new article before submitting, but then again we are expected to wait apprently till its deemed ok to look through and tag or not to tag. Sorry thats not how it works. Please keep your comments civil and quit telling people to do things they can't do. --Xiahou 00:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no--25 seconds is just not a reasonable amount of time to wait before jumping the gun, tagging, and deleting, especially when the editor is a longtime and productive contributor and the band is the most notable band from Burkina Faso. It was your mistake, and I'll ask again that you restore the article immediately, thank you and all best. Badagnani 00:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I was answerimng this editor while you did, resulting in an edit conflict. I will answer him again now. Please do not edit for a minute or two so that I can do so.--Anthony.bradbury 00:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Asking for 5 minutes was very generous, because 25 seconds (the time you gave me before getting rid of the article entirely, while I was adding a lot of information) is only 8 percent of that amount of time. Thanks again for restoring the page. Badagnani 00:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I CAN'T RESTORE THE PAGE. I give up. I wash my hands of this. Sir/Madam I have replied to you. I tried telling you I give up. I didn't delete it. I can't restore it. Currently as I write this it isn't restored. I don't know what you what you are talking about. But I am done. I am out. --Xiahou 00:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have told him to go, if he wishes, to WP:DRV. I am now bored as well.--Anthony.bradbury 00:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Cortex Command
I don't see why this page should be deleted...I was currently working on it and adding to it when you tagged it dude.

Thanks!
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page! Gee, I wonder if it is some type of Wiki-achievement to attract vandal edits on your user and talk pages... - tameeria 04:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Movement to impeach George W. Bush
You need to show there is "another side". Saying there is another side without evidence is POV. As I said before, he has not been impeached - there is no "other side", except from political hacks like radio talk show hosts which are not notable. Show some serious, cited and notable evidence of "another side" that is appropriate for this article. I'm not sure it exists. -- Stbalbach 02:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No one needs to show there is another side. Rather, the one removing the POV tag needs to show there is some consensus that the POV issues are currently resolved. --Ronz 01:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That works for me now if somone can only convince him of this. Though showing another side to would balance it out. What you say is true though it puts the ball in their court to show how not just flippantly removing it because they don't want it there. Then trying to turn it all political rather than about the article itself. --Xiahou 01:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant the comment for you both. He refuses to let me add anything to his talk page after I tried to discuss a fairly minor dispute with him there.  If need be, we can call for a more formal consensus on the issue, which will make Stbalbach's personal opinions moot if he cannot back them with policies and guidelines.  From my other experiences with him, he rarely takes the time to do so. --Ronz 01:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about that, I have lots of time and know the rules and guidelines very well. I'm also pretty good at consensus building if it comes down to it (consensus is more powerful than rules, and consensus is built by strength of argument for the specifics of a case). -- Stbalbach 12:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm looking forward to you demonstrating your consensus-building skills. --Ronz 01:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Shipwreck
Sometimes people like to edit in small chunks. :) Keep watching for more article developing Nardman1 01:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC) my gut was telling me that. So was your past contributions. I will take a look. --Xiahou 01:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci
Recent controversy? yes. And unless you're on Mars, you know about it. The main article on the painting deals with it in detail. There's no need for it to be discussed in the brief summary given within the Leonardo da Vinci article, but it is something that people find interesting, and its linked by the simple fact that the painting's title is blue. --Amandajm 03:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

you say "no need for it to be discussed in the brief summary given within the Leonardo da Vinci article" No need why. Says who? I am proof enough a simple summary why should be included. Stangely enough all the major news networks here on Mars haven't covered the controversy of the painting. Nor on Earth. At least not front page on the major news outlets be it BBC, Reuters, Fox, CNN etc. Rather than sarcasm why not add the information that way the caption actually has context to the article rather than be misleading and non linking for those who want to know why. Then you say "but it is something that people find interesting" whats interesting about a statement that doesn't say why? Hey this painting is controversial but here on the authors page we won't say why or link it we will just leave it up to you to dig. Not very helpful is it. So why not just best of both worlds if you know the reason why its 'controversial' add the info or link it somehow so those of us living on Mars know why. Rather than just being presumptuous  and assuming everyone knows because you do. --Xiahou 22:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you telling me that the BBC, Reuters, Fox, CNN haven't covered "The da Vinci Code", that it hasn't made front page news, that the Vatican hasn't responded to it, there there haven't been a dozen books written refuting it? That there hasn't been a movie? The picture is linked to its own article. The article deals with the Dan Brown controversy. Anyone who wants to know anything more about the pictuure only needs to click on the picture's title.

As for writng more about it within the actual Leonardo Article, No! I have been extremely selective in what I have said. Going into the Dan Brown bullshit in that article is unwarranted. But many/most people know that the painting has been cited as evidence for Dan Brown's stupid case. The fact that it is mentioned there and the title of the picture is highlighted indicating that it has an article is sufficient. The article cannot mention everything about Leonardo da Vinci. A few months ago it had 200 lines about his homosexuality, 100 lines about his science and nothing, repeat nothing about the paintings. I have made a balance. I am not going to write the whole bloody "Da Vinci" debacle into it, because every serious Leonardo scholar regards it as crap. No art historian calls him "Da Vinci". His name is Leonardo. That alone shows that Brown's opinions are worthless. --Amandajm 00:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your preaching to the choir. I think So little of Browns opinions that I didn't take it into account. I so competley discounted them that it didn't even register. Its a flat earth issue to me. Its been shot down so much I thought issue was dead years ago. Just money grubbing sensationalism trying to change history to fit their conspiracy to sell books. --Xiahou 00:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for getting back to me about it. I have incorporated your link with the apppropriate words so that the reader knows where the arrow goes to. --Amandajm 01:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)