Cincinatis

Welcome!

Hello, Cincinatis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Vision Thing -- 16:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Dick Morris, Charles Lane (journalist)‎, Jennifer Rubin (journalist), and Jonathan Chait. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Jonathan Chait. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Jonathan Chait, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:BLP issue / User:Cincinatis. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Jewish

You deleted my mention of public figures being Jewish, and have given changing reasons for doing so. First you claimed it was unsourced. I provided a source. Then you claimed it was not relevant. I provided evidence of relevance to their public persona. Then you claimed it wasn't relevant to 'their career'. By your logic, their date of birth and hometown would be eliminated. You are simply trying to censor the fact that they're Jewish, and not being objective. This is unacceptable Wikipedia behavior. Please stop. --Cincinatis (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, "Jewish" is not a religion. Next, you inserted the material with no sources, or unreliable ones, or material which didn't actually state their religion. Next, you provided no "evidence of relevance" - the fact that it matters to you is not evidence of relevance. Finally, if you continue to yellow badge these individuals, you will almost certainly be blocked. I strongly encourage you to stop and revert yourself, before this happens. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect Jayjg , what my motivation is (your claim that I'm trying to "yellow badge" individuals) is irrelevant to whether the information is suitable for a Wikipedia article, and you are clearly pursuing an ideological agenda of fighting anti-semitism at the expense of the administrator's responsibility to be objective about what content is or isn't acceptable in a Wikipedia article. Mentioning someone is Jewish is NOT anti-semitism. Mentioning a public figure's religion OR ethnicity is perfectly biographical information, ESPECIALLY when there have been mentions of their ethnicity/religion in the media, and especially when they are part of a minority (which makes their ethnicity/religion a more distinguishing characteristic).

Even if they weren't a minority, and even if there had been no media mentions of it, their ethnic and/or religious background would still be relevant biographical information.

To address some of the specific allegations you've made:

"First of all, "Jewish" is not a religion."

But that's not your concern. I could change it from 'religion' to 'ethnicity' and you would still be opposing the information being included in their biography. Both religion and ethnicity are biographical information.

"Next, you inserted the material with no sources, or unreliable ones, or material which didn't actually state their religion."

I've only provided one source that has not been very reliable. I can remove the content if you like and only re-insert it if I find a reliable source. I hope that addresses your concern.

I have NOT provided multiple unreliable sources. ALL of my other sources have been reliable.

"or material which didn't actually state their religion."

The distinction between the source mentioning that an individual's religion is Jewish or just stating they're Jewish is a trivial one. You could just easily change the 'religion' category to 'ethnicity'. This is a Red Herring/an-excuse, and not a valid reason to undo my edits and threaten me with getting blocked.

"Next, you provided no "evidence of relevance" - the fact that it matters to you is not evidence of relevance."

The sources I provided for the claim of a Jewish background contain evidence of relevance in the case of Dick Morris, Charles Lane, and Jennifer Rubin and I explained what specifically that evidence is in the case of Dick Morris and Charles Lane in the edit summaries, so you are wrong. I am more than willing to specify exactly where in the article I referenced in the Jennifer Rubin article the evidence for relevance is. I can also provide articles showing relevance in the case of Jonathan Chait's Jewish background.

So far though, you haven't shown much interest in actually discussing this issue and reasonably addressing my arguments. You haven't asked me to improve my edits to make them more acceptable. All you've done is delete, deny and threaten to block. Therefore, I don't know if it's worth my time to provide sources to back up my argument.

"Finally, if you continue to yellow badge these individuals, you will almost certainly be blocked."

That is not an argument for why the content is unacceptable for entry into an article. It's an accusation about my motivations, which is completely outside of the acceptable reasons for blocking insertions of content and blocking a user. ---Cincinatis (talk) 10:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

1. If you can't decide or state with certainty whether or not an individual is Jewish by religion or ethnicity, then you obviously shouldn't be editing their biographies to claim their religion is "Jewish".
2. "Jewish" isn't a religion anyway, "Judaism" is.
3. Just because someone happens to once state "I'm Jewish", it doesn't mean it's particularly relevant to their careers or notability.
4. We know this material isn't relevant: for example, their articles don't say anything about it.
5. Your method here has been to search for some source stating an individual is Jewish, and then use whatever that source says (regardless of what it says) as "evidence" that the person's "religion" is relevant to their notability. You even claim that Chait's "Jewish background" is "relevant", despite the fact that you do not have even one reliable source supporting the claim that he even has a "Jewish background"
6. Even if something is true, that doesn't mean it must be included in a Wikipedia article, and it's not "censorship" to exclude irrelevant material. See WP:NOT.

Jayjg ^(talk) 17:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"If you can't decide or state with certainty whether or not an individual is Jewish by religion or ethnicity, then you obviously shouldn't be editing their biographies to claim their religion is "Jewish"."

Instead of giving a personal opinion on whether I should be editing their biography, you should be improving the edit, or giving me suggestions on how to improve it. Instead all of your communications and edits have tried to make me cease all efforts to include mentions of Judaism OR Jewishness in the articles. This is very poor administrator behavior.

""Jewish" isn't a religion anyway, "Judaism" is."

Actually "Jewish" can describe the characteristic of being of the Jewish faith, but any way, this is semantics. The real issue is that have your communications and edits have tried to make me cease inserting content that mentions an individual is Jewish, or of the Jewish faith. Claiming that due to semantics, the content should be deleted, is pedantic.

"Just because someone happens to once state "I'm Jewish", it doesn't mean it's particularly relevant to their careers or notability."

A person's faith and ethnic background is commonly considered relevant to their biography. Many articles about not particularly religious people include information on their religious, and people not particularly involved in their ethnic identity, include information on their ethnic background. You're applying a special standard to this case that is not applied in other biographies.

"We know this material isn't relevant: for example, their articles don't say anything about it."

No, you claim it isn't relevant, because of an arbitrary standard for relevance you are applying to these particular cases. There are plenty of biographical articles that have an individual's religion in their infobox that don't mention it any where in the article. Just one quick example: Newt Gingrich, it mentions he's Roman Catholic in the infobox, and doesn't mention it in the article.

"Your method here has been to search for some source stating an individual is Jewish, and then use whatever that source says (regardless of what it says) as "evidence" that the person's "religion" is relevant to their notability."

That is not my method at all. It's just a coincidence that in three of the four cases, the sources that stated the individual is Jewish also contained examples of the relevance of their Jewishness to their identity and public persona. Your claim that this is a method is contradicted by the fact that I don't do this for all four articles. Your accusation is just a deflection/avoidance of the argument I've made. You still haven't addressed any of the specific arguments for relevance I made. This is poor administrator behavior.

"You even claim that Chait's "Jewish background" is "relevant", despite the fact that you do not have even one reliable source supporting the claim that he even has a "Jewish background""

I addressed this already. I stated that I am more than willing to remove that content until I find a more reliable source. You are building a straw man and pretending that I haven't addressed, in a reasonable manner, your objections. This is a case of you debating in bad faith.

I also mentioned in my previous reply, that I can provide you with considerable evidence that Chait's Jewish background is relevant to his public persona, if I was convinced you were actually interested in examining and considering my evidence with an open mind, but I have seen no indication that you are.

"Even if something is true, that doesn't mean it must be included in a Wikipedia article, and it's not "censorship" to exclude irrelevant material."

You have made unsubstantiated claims of it being irrelevant. Biographical information is not irrelevant in a biographical article. This is pretty basic. To make a claim that it is irrelevant, and invent this arbitrary standard that has a mention of their ethnicity or religion has to directly relate to their career, is really biased and poor administration. I have also provided article-specific evidence for three out of four articles, that their Jewish background is relevant directly to their career/public-persona, and you have dismissed it out of hand. Again, you are engaging in poor administration. --Cincinatis (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to keep this relatively short.

1. Not all "biographical information" is relevant to a biographical article - we don't, for example, include things like shoe sizes or even height on most biographical articles. The latter is a good example; height is relevant in the biography of a basketball player, but not relevant in the biography of a politician (unless, like Abraham Lincoln, they were well-known for their extreme height).
2. It is up to the person adding or restoring material to show it belongs in an article, or is relevant.
3. You continue to claim that if a source states an individual is Jewish, that is ipso facto proof that this Jewishness is relevant to their career or notable. Thus you continue to claim that an off-hand comment made on a TV show indicates considerable relevance. To prove relevance, you must provide multiple, reliable, secondary sources that state something (such as being Jewish) is relevant to an individual's career or notability, not just your personal view that it's really, really, really important.
4. You continue to insist that Chait's "Jewish background" is "relevant to his public" persona, despite having not a single reliable source that indicates this. Moreover, though you claim you are "more than willing to remove that content until I find a more reliable source", in reality you insisted on restoring the claim and non-reliable source, stating you would "address source later". This is exactly the wrong way of editing, particularly of biographies. First you should read what reliable sources say, then summarize them. You should not, instead, make unsubstantiated claims because they're personally important to you, then insist they stay in an article despite having no reliable sourcing or apparent relevance.

Please revise your approach to bring it in line with WP:BLP, which I suggest you read very carefully. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"On the general point, not all "biographical information" is relevant to a biographical article - we don't, for example, include things like shoe sizes or even height on most biographical articles."

But there is no clear criteria as to what is relevant, and in what circumstances. In cases of ambiguity, leaving the information in there, rather than undoing my edits and warning me I would be blocked if I insert it, seems like a more reasonable approach. After-all, it's not factually incorrect information and it is biographical.

"The latter is a good example; height is relevant in the biography of a basketball player, but not relevant in the biography of a politician (unless, like Abraham Lincoln, they were well-known for their extreme height)."

Religion and ethnicity are commonly cited for public figures in their articles, even when they didn't play any significant role in their public life or careers. Both qualities are far more generally relevant to an individual's biography, and more commonly mentioned, than your example of height.

"It is up to the person adding or restoring material to show it belongs in an article, or is relevant."

I did: I mentioned it's biographical information, and generally considered a pretty important quality of an individual, certainty worthy of inclusion in a biography.

"You continue to claim that if a source states an individual is Jewish, that is ipso facto proof that this Jewishness is relevant to their career or notable."

I have not once made this argument, and I directly stated in my last comment, after the first time you alleged this, that this is not my argument. I have repeatedly explained my reasoning. One more time:

That is not my method at all. It's just a coincidence that in three of the four cases, the sources that stated the individual is Jewish also contained examples of the relevance of their Jewishness to their identity and public persona. Your claim that this is a method is contradicted by the fact that I don't do this for all four articles. Your accusation is just a deflection/avoidance of the argument I've made. You still haven't addressed any of the specific arguments for relevance I made. This is poor administrator behavior.

As you can see above, I directly refuted your claim before, and you have now just repeated yourself. This means you're debating in bad faith, and not really acknowledging/responding to my comments.

"To prove relevance, you must provide multiple, reliable, secondary sources that state something (such as being Jewish) is relevant to an individual's career or notability, not just your personal view that it's really, really, really important."

WP:BLP states that "categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability". It does not mention "career", it mentions "public life", and does not mention ethnicity, only religion.

By this criteria, their religious affiliation can be mentioned if I can show with reliable sources it is "relevant to their public life or notability" (not "career or notability"), and their ethnicity can be mentioned without any requirement of showing its relevance to their public life or notability.

I would like another administrator to weigh in on this as your position on this is unsubstantiated and counter to common practice on Wikipedia. If it turns out other administrators agree with you, then I would be more than happy to provide these "multiple, reliable, secondary sources".

"You continue to insist that Chait's "Jewish background" is "relevant to his public" persona, despite having not a single reliable source that indicates this. "

You have now repeatedly ignored my comments and repeatedly lied about what I've written. One more time:

I addressed this already. I stated that I am more than willing to remove that content until I find a more reliable source.

If you continue to ignore my rebuttal and repeat your false allegation, I will have no choice but to request another administrator get involved as you are being unreasonable and uncooperative in this discussion.

"Moreover, though you claim you are "more than willing to remove that content until I find a more reliable source", in reality you insisted on restoring the claim and non-reliable source, stating you would "address source later"."

That was my initial position, but not my latest, or second latest position. My more recent, and therefore relevant position, is that I am "more than willing to remove that content until I find a more reliable source". Your citing of my first position that I have since improved upon is bad faith debating. --Cincinatis (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, trying to keep it brief:

1. Re: "In cases of ambiguity, leaving the information in there, rather than undoing my edits and warning me I would be blocked if I insert it, seems like a more reasonable approach". This is exactly wrong when it comes to WP:BLP. For BLPs, one must be conservative in approach, removing any challenged information.
2. Re: "Religion and ethnicity are commonly cited for public figures in their articles, even when they didn't play any significant role in their public life or careers". This is not a proof that either is relevant to their public life or notability.
3. Re: "I mentioned it's biographical information, and generally considered a pretty important quality of an individual, certainty worthy of inclusion in a biography". Again, just because you think, or assert, that something is "pretty important", it doesn't mean it actually is. And just because something is "biographical information", or true, it doesn't mean it should be included in the biography.
4. Re: "I directly refuted your claim before". I think you need to look up what the word "refute" means. Claiming that things repeatedly happened because "It's just a coincidence" is not a refutation. It's not even credible.
5. Re: "You have now repeatedly ignored my comments and repeatedly lied about what I've written." I haven't ignored or lied about anything. You still have not supplied any reliable sources indicating Chait even has a "Jewish background", much less that this is notable. You keep claiming that you could do so, but you still have not.

And finally, if you accuse me of lying again, this conversation will be over. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Re:"This is exactly wrong when it comes to WP:BLP. For BLPs, one must be conservative in approach, removing any challenged information."

Specifically with regards to categories, WP:BLP states: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources". It does not state that one must be conservative with non-religion/sexual-orientation categories. Given this, adding "ethnicity" and describing them as Jewish, rather than repeatedly deleting my insertions and threatening me with blocking seems more reasonable.

2. Re:"#Re: "Religion and ethnicity are commonly cited for public figures in their articles, even when they didn't play any significant role in their public life or careers". This is not a proof that either is relevant to their public life or notability."

It is strong evidence. Convention establishes commonly accepted standards of relevance.

3. Re:"#Re: "I mentioned it's biographical information, and generally considered a pretty important quality of an individual, certainty worthy of inclusion in a biography". Again, just because you think, or assert, that something is "pretty important", it doesn't mean it actually is."

And just because you think, or assert, that something is "not relevant", doesn't mean it actually isn't.

4. Re:"#Re: "I directly refuted your claim before". I think you need to look up what the word "refute" means. Claiming that things repeatedly happened because "It's just a coincidence" is not a refutation. It's not even credible."

I directly refuted your claim by pointing out that what you had claimed I had done: claim that if a source states an individual is Jewish, that is ipso facto proof that this Jewishness is relevant to their career or notable. I had never done. This is an unsupported allegation against me, that you've repeated after I've claimed it's not true. You have not provided any quotation from me doing what you allege I have done, yet you continue to repeat the allegation after I ask you not to.

The onus to support an allegation about an editor, that is vehemently denied by the editor, is on the person making the allegation. That you're not doing is you debating in bad faith/not-being cooperative.

5. Re:"You still have not supplied any reliable sources indicating Chait even has a "Jewish background", much less that this is notable. You keep claiming that you could do so, but you still have not."

One more time, I am not at the moment asking for the inclusion of Chait's Jewish background in the article. I have stated I am OK with this being omitted until I provide very reliable sources. You are arguing a straw man and criticizing me for something I am not trying to do.

6. Re:"finally, if you accuse me of lying again, this conversation will be over."

Making a false point once about my argument might be an honest mistake, but repeatedly ignoring my point and repeating false allegations is a lie. If you lie, I will point out that you lied.--Cincinatis (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Mind if I step in here?

I'm coming in to this new and would like to help. It seems there is some friction here and that's not good for anybody, so I'd like to offer some suggestions if that's OK.

@Jayjg, from what I can tell, Cincinatis appears to be a good-faith new editor that wants to help our project. I think it would be good if we could help this editor in the most friendly way possible.

@Cincinatis, thanks for your contributions. Wikipedia relies on helpful contributions from people like you. We have a lot of rules and you're doing an excellent job of learning them. Because Wikpedia is so visible, it can have an impact on people's lives. So we have very cautious rules about what can be added to articles about living people (and everything that mentions living people). This is because it could have a negative impact on thier lives and could get us in to legal trouble. Our main policy is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which I believe you've already read. Some of the more contentious areas people can work in are religion and enthnicity, as you can probably tell from this discussion. While many may see your additions as helpful, others may not. Either way, they will be under a lot of scrutiny. I should also mention that working in this area may cause other users to be rather blunt and possibly even hostile and you'll probably be under a microscope. Some may also accuse you of being a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, which could be detrimental to your position. If you believe the article would be improved by adding these things, then it's best to use an unimpeachably reliable source, such as a newspaper article. You can use Google News Archives to help with this. If you believe your additions are being treated unfairly, you can bring up the issue at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard where our experts will have a look at the situation. I should also mention that I'm not an expert. I don't want to dissuade you from working in this area, just to let you know how difficult it is. I should also mention that there are many areas of Wikipedia that are much easier to work in. Pretty much anything that isn't people, religion or politics. I'll end by saying that you are one of the best new users I've run across. In fact, I don't recall any new user that have learned our policies and operations as fast as you have. That's makes you very valauble to our project and I thank you for that. Please don't hesitate to ask if I can help with anything. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hydroxonium. In his most recent comment Cincinatis again called me a liar, despite my telling him that I would not longer respond to him if he did so. I don't have to engage in dialogue with people who insult me; if he redacts that portion of his comment, I'll engage with him again. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not call you a liar, I stated you lied. I will not redact that portion. You still haven't redacted your "yellow badging" comment, despite being told by other editors that that's inappropriate. I'm not going to remove what I believe to be an accurate statement about your allegations to make someone who calls me an anti-semite feel better. --Cincinatis (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong foot?

We may have gotten off on the wrong foot here. We are all here to improve the project, so we have that in common. So maybe we can start over.

Hi Jayjg. Please meet Cincinatis. He is one of the best new users I have run across. I hope you'll join me in welcoming him to our community.

Hi Cincinatis. I'd like to introduce you to Jayjg. He's one of our most dedicated admins here. He can help you with many things, including many of our policies.

Sometimes we have disagreements. It's inevitable. But we try our best to work through them. We often say things in the heat of the moment. And sometimes it's difficult to retract those things. But it doesn't mean we can't work together and cooperatively to help the project. Maybe we can apologize to each other or maybe we can just put all of this behind us. I have a great deal of respect for both of you and truly wish we could work together. If we aren't able to do that, maybe we can agree to disagree and part our seperate ways.

From my pont of view, both sides have said things I wish they didn't. But none of it was to the point of no return, so to speak. This incident is minor compared to many other things here. And both of you are here to help the project and have earned the respect of others, which is quite an accomplishment. So I'd like to call a truce if that's OK with both of you. OK? - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that I can see that, while both of you are unhappy, that you both are being as polite to each other as possible. That is encouraging and is why I'm asking for a truce. Because it looks as if both of you would like to come to some agreement. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, it's greatly appreciated, and sorry for the delay in getting back to you, I've been preoccupied these last couple of weeks. May I suggest another experienced editor/administrator dealing with this case. In fact I think Jayjg suggested something to the effect of someone else taking up my issue when he first submitted this incident to the Administrators' Noticeboard. Jayjg and I can agree to call a truce, but this specific issue might be too contentious for us two at this point to deal with in a detached manner.

I would like to propose creating, and submitting for discussion, an alternative edit for the four biographies in contention, that I would try to make address the concerns raised by jayjg about the content's compliance with WP:BLP. Do you think you might be able to review my proposed edits?--Cincinatis (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Policy and guidelines

• - Hi, just a comment about this issue as a word of advice to Cincinatis. Some of the ways we do things here that are according to WP:Policies and guidelines seem to a new user to be very strange but that is the way things have developed and User:Jayjg is an experienced editor in the interpretation of those policies and guidelines. You guys may have got off on the wrong foot but imo you would to well to take some of his advice and these policy positions on board. Here at wikipedia we are especially careful about when we add about living people, WP:BLP - for example religious belief - we need a very strong clear statement from the user of strong reliable sources WP:RS - that clearly state he is a religious person before we add such personal details. If you have a question about adding details about living people you can always request comments from editors at the WP:BLPN - the noticeboard that is specific for disputed content about living people, thanks. - Youreallycan (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. While Editor:Jayjg may be a bit abrupt in his style, his evaluation is within policy and guidelines. There are many ways to contribute. Sometimes new editors get stuck. I'm not saying to give up your convictions. Policy and guidelines can and do change. I just have seen to many good quality new editors get ensnared in unnecesary early conflict. Don't take it personal and it won't be personal. Good luck! --Buster Seven Talk 19:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

A Primer Welcome

Season's Greetings Cincinatis, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed you have already been welcomed but this one may have different links that you may find stimulating.

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:

• some General guidance.
• Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
• Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
• Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
• Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
• Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
• Use the Show preview button
• Provide an Edit summary
• Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
• Take a look at Consensus of standards
• Create a User page

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance or a different policy viewpoint.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, --Buster Seven Talk 19:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Hi Cincinatis. Thank you for your help and contributions to Wikipedia. We are a volunteer run project and we need the help of voluteers such as yourself. We appreciate all our volunteers, although there are times it may seem like we don't. I see you've had a rough time recently and I wanted give you some encouragement. You've been doing remarkably well and I sincerely hope we haven't discouraged you. It does take some time to learn all our rules, but as I've said, you're doing remarkably well. There are many volunteers here who are willing to give you a hand if you need help with anything. Thanks again for your contributions and keep up the good work. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 04:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. --Cincinatis (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

just want to tell you that you're not the only one appalled by jayjg's behaviour. usually, i don't care about people who behave like five-year-olds. the problem here is that mister jayjg is an administrator. i think the time is ripe for a community action.-- altetendekrabbe  18:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Magi: Lost Kings or Aliens w/ GPS

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays..--Buster Seven Talk 25 December 2011 (UTC)