Latest comment: 18 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion
I have reverted your latest links as you have misstated WP:NOT. If you actually read it
it does not give internal links any preference over external ones. Please read point
2 in the section of WP:NOT on links. If you sabotage an article again by quoting a policy
you have not studied I will raise the matter through the official complaint channels. This
is the second article where you have tried to apply policies which you have not actually
read. Davebrooky21:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Neither of those statements is backed up by anything in WP:NOT. Please, please, please read the policies. The ERP article you championed is more in violation of WP:NOT than the real time editor. Calm down. Slow down. Read the policy. Davebrooky21:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Now go and read WP:EL. Do you see the bit up there where it says I'm an admin? That indicates I probably understand policy. I invite you to consider the possibility that you, a user with under three days history on your account, are the one who does not fully understand policy as normally understood and applied. So now, instead of reverting to the linkspam version, go and find cites for the editorial comments you've made, as flagged in the article. Just zis Guy you know?21:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well quote the policy then. I refer you to 'not merely a collection of internal links', point 2 of
the section on links in WP:NOT. So your claim that the policy is for internal links only is unjustified.
Davebrooky21:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
WP:NOT is policy; founded on that we have a guideline, WP:EL which I've linked a few times now. Now would be a great time to stop wikilawyering and start listening - I have, after all, been around the project for a while and seen many similar cases. Just zis Guy you know?21:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have raised the matter on the incident board. Hopefully we'll get some objective option. In your current mental state you are a liability to wikipedia as an admin, as you are clearly using it as a self-esteem raising exerise. Davebrooky22:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
There seems to be a difference of opinion on red links. Some people seem to think they are bad, as any serious topic would already have a blue link. Others vote to delete articles (eg FORscene) which are not linked to on the grounds that if they were serious they would already have red links to them. What is your opinion, and is there an official policy on this? Stephen B Streater22:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
In general, a few redlinks in the text of a prose article, to topics which are unambiguously encyclopaedic, are not a problem. In lists, redlinks are more of an issue, especially wehn they are to articles which have been subject to deletion debates. External links are deprecated in both cases. Just zis Guy you know?22:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Why are you attacking me? I was not the person who inserted the "push it to the limit" line in the Safety article, sure I added on to it a bit, i added in the words "where your safety will not be guaranteed" but I also contributed a few other things to that article too, such as a link to Car safety, among other things. It was actually 128.255.173.233 who put that in first. I went ahead and put back in those slight contributions that were deleted with the revert of my "safety not being guaranteed" addition.
If you have a problem with some "crap" I add to any future articles, nexttime please focus on the issue rather than the person, and we can work something out, instead of you threatening to block me. Bubby the Tour G23:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I don't care whether you added it or expanded it: the SNG bullshit is by now chronically unfunny, and adding it is straight vandalism. I threaten to block vandals - and I follow that through and block them, as well. The warning I left on your page was 100% about the contentious content and not in any way personalised, except in as much as you appear to be a YTMNDer, and YTMNDers seem to regard gaming Wikipedia as a legitimate way of spreading thier so-called fads. If you don't want ot be accused of vandalism, don't add bullshit to Wikipedia. Simple, really. Just zis Guy you know?08:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Alright, but a please would be nice. Being rude to people only causes problems. All you had to say was "Please stop making YTMND jokes in Wikipedia articles, please." That would have solved it straight away. Bubby the Tour G16:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Have you looked at the page history and seen just how many times that particular piece of idiocy has been added to that article? It's been protected three times for persistent vandalism, in every case the same crap. We tried being nice, we tried being light-hearted, adding an HTML comment saying "your edit is not guaranteed if it includes pushing it to the limit" - but the crap just kept being re-inserted. And you want me to apologise? I think not. There is no such thing as acceptable vandalism in the vandalism policy. Just zis Guy you know?21:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I never asked you to apologize at all. From what I understand, you are acting as if I made all of those "pushing it to the limit" and "safety not guaranteed" edits. I added that in once. Hell, I didn't even add it in. I just added on to what was already there. Maybe being light-hearted for first-time offenders would have worked for people like me. Don't be prejudiced against first time vandals just because they seem like some YTMND n00bs who only use Wikipedia to vandalize its articles, that is, unless they continue "vandalizing" again and again and again, which I have not done. I have contributed many things here and there throughout Wikipedia, just look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bubby_the_Tour_G my contributions and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=65.34.136.176 my other contributions for the times I forget to sign in. And yes, I do happen to be a fan of YTMND, and yes, I have made a YTMND myself, just look at my YTMND profile at www.ytmnd.com/users/profile/BubbytheTourG www.ytmnd.com/users/profile/BubbytheTourG. I will warn you though, the YTMND that I made is definitely not safe for work, so do not look at it if you are easily offended. Bubby the Tour G05:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
When you see crap in a Wikipedia article, you should remove it, not add to it. It has been added so many times by so many people that I have neither the time nor the patience to go through and find out if an individual editor has added that particular crap tot hat particular article before. As an editor with an edit history you must surely realise that it has no place in that article - and yet you expanded it instead of removing it. What were you thinking of? All you are doing here is digging deeper. Just zis Guy you know?07:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
It was a simple joke, and now that it has already been taken care of, it shouldn't even be an issue anomore. As this issue is being pushed to the limit, neither of our safeties are guaranteed anymore, so I'm out. Good day, sir. Bubby the Tour G16:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Alright, this is where the cookie crumbles. What is so wrong about pointing out a simple fact about music artist Baltimora and an example of his fame throughout the internet? I am NOT vandalizing anything, and I am quite upset that y'all are accusing me of being a vandal. I am simply pointing out another example of his fame, just like there already is in Gay Fuel and Tarzan Boy. Wikipedia is becoming one big power game, and if we users do not stand up to it, we will soon become much like the government controls the media in Communist China. Why do you Wikipedia administrators HATEYTMND and any reference to it so much? Wikipedia is becoming so bad, we can't even have a Brian Peppers article, but on the Human feces article, a picture of a big fat stinky turd is allowed to stay. What is this injustice? Bubby the Tour G23:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
What is wrong with it is that it is of no relevance whatsoever to the subject. YTMND has almost exactly no importance whatsoever outside of the minds of its members. Incidentally, precisely what image do you think should illustrate human feces if not that of a turd? For the record, I don't think anyoine "hates" YTMND, but lots of us have little patience for YTMND members' refusal to accept that every tiny fad within their microcosm of the universe is of global significance. Just zis Guy you know?08:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
It may not exactly be of global significance, but I am quite shocked that something that lies in significant internet fad status is not allowed to be recognized, thereby depriving of the knowledge to anyone who hasn't heard of it, and on top of that, being accused of being a vandal when I try to bring that information to the common folk.
Regarding the picture of the human turd in human feces, there should at least be some sort of warning before someone sees that huge, disgusting, wet & stinky piece of poo. It is very unsettling, especially when it goes without warning. Bubby the Tour G19:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
What part of fad are you having trouble understanding? It is the nature of fads that they are ephemeral. Trying to perpetuate them by adding them to other articles is Just Plain Wrong, because the objective significance of what YTMND thinks is, to a good first approximation, zero. As to the turd, who exactly do you think is going to look up that article? Or to put it another way, when you buy a new dictionary, which words do you look up first? Just zis Guy you know?21:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
You have to look outside the people directly involved in something to gauge its significance. This is to allow for the fact that things look big close up. Stephen B Streater21:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Look buddy, I already know what a fad is. I am not the problem here, so don't point your finger at me. As I said before, it isn't necessarily of global significance, but it is another example of Baltimora's fame and status in internet culture. How come there is a reference to YTMND on the Starfox 64 article when Peppy Hare says "Do a Barrel Roll!"? How come there is no argument over that, and it is allowed to stay without issue?
Deciding whether something is significant enough to be on an article is unfortunately a matter of opinion, where you and I do not agree. And unfortunately, as I said before, Wikipedia is becoming one big power game, and seeing how you have admin status, and looking at me, how I fill the role as a plebeian, only a user, well, by default I am set to lose. Oh well, I guess my safetyisnotwikipedia.ytmnd.com/ Safety is Not Guaranteed When I Edit Wikipedia. I'm out. Bubby the Tour G23:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
In regards to the finger, I was referring to the fact that you thought I didn't know what a fad was. And, just because you are an admin doesn't mean that you have the right to deprive people about facets of YTMND in our world. So, because of your and a few other guys opinions, I have to conform to someone else's interests? I don't want to, but I am being put down due to my low status in the Wikipedia world, and threatened with a block if I don't conform. No matter how hard you try, you can't make YTMND disappear from the world. Bubby the Tour G20:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ah, right, so you know a fad is an ephemeral thing of no lasting significance and you still put fads into two articles. And yes, you do have to conform to other people's views of the world: it's called respecting consensus. See if you can find a consensus for allowing references to tangentially related trivia from self-obsessed web boards in main space articles. Propose it at the Village Pump policy section. Once you've achieved that consensus, you'll be fine. Until that happens Wikipedia is not a portal to YTMND. Just zis Guy you know?20:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Alright, maybe I will go to the Village Pump and "achieve my consensus", and we'll see then who the man is, dog!!! Speaking of that, I just had an idea. Maybe I should make a YTMND site out of this. Bubby the Tour G22:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Unsourced claimes in living persons bios need to be removed. I don't doubt it's true but they need a reference. For living bios the policy os to delete unsourced material immediately. Please find your sources for your claims. --Tbeatty14:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Comments made in the relevant places. I don't think Guðsþegn is unreasonable, it may be possible to work with him to address the issues he perceives as existing within these articles. Just zis Guy you know?09:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The lead sentence of the article is POV. The false pretense that the term PBA is only used by pro-lifers is ridiculous. It is the most widely used and recognized term for IDX abortions. IDX is a technical term that even the newspapers and TV news don't use. My removing that POV is quite proper and in accord with wiki policy. My other edits simply removing more similar POV. Go ahead and edit - but threatening me with a block because you want the POV text to remain in the article is plain abuse and against wikipedia policy. ____G_o_o_d____11:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
The lead sentence is accurate. It is a non-medical term coined for political purposes by opponents of the procedure. Your removing that fact against consensus is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Your judgment on the matter is clearly not neutral, neither is mine but as a liberal British Christian my view is probably more neutral in that regard than yours. I think it is a distasteful procedure, but that has nothign to do with what the article should say about it. Just zis Guy you know?11:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
The problem is not with individual links, it's with the behaviour of the site's owner. The site was linked into over 100 articles, often with only the most peripheral relationship to the content, often with misleading (or no) edit summaries, frequently with misleading link text ("Catholic view of foo" when actually it was the Vatican II-dissenting view); "traditional Catholic foo" instead of traditionalist Catholic view of foo), and most recently the fisheaters link to a document was posted when the same document is available from the Vatican website, which is clearly a more authoritative source. There was a brief and bitter edit war over removal of the links, but they are creeping back in at a steady rate, usually added by anons. So, it is partly that these are monographs of no evident authority (however interesting), partly that the links are often phrased in misleading terms, partly that the overall message of the site represents a minority view, and partly because the site owner is a serial violator of WP:3RR, WP:EL and WP:CON. If they could be trusted to play nice no problem woudl exist, but they seem to me to be determined to use Wikipedia as a tool to boost their pagerank. Which is a shame, because taken in context the site is stated by those who know to be a reasonable representation of the dissenting Catholic viewpoint. Just zis Guy you know?22:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
"The site was linked into over 100 articles, often with only the most peripheral relationship to the content" -- "often"? Really? Like how? Seems to me that there were one or two links added to stubs (only one by the Fish Eaters webmaster and for which there was an apology for the error) and that's about it, with the rest ALL being links of this nature: link to a page on the Feast of the Pentecost on the entry "Pentecost"; link to Feast of Mary Magdalen on the entry Mary Magdalen, etc. Look it up! Go back to when all this stuff started and look at the links you are balking at. I don't think it is "playing nice" to mischaracterize the situation, which, apparently, was only a matter of there having been "too many" links, the "appropriate" number never having been revealed even after repeated questioning and before the "purge" (instigated by Dominick, a non-admin who could edit war all that night, apparently). And not all links added to that site were added by the person who runs Fish Eaters in the first place. Ask if Clinkophonist has anything to do with Fish Eaters. Ask "Evrik," who, I've been informed, recently tried to add a link to the same site but was told by Dominick that "Fisheaters was using wikipedia...in order to support a ministry" (a "ministry"?). Now is it "playing nice" to impugn the motives of someone who is trying to teach about Catholicism by characterizing their efforts as "spam" (to a non-commercial site)? Is it playing nice to refer to "edit wars" when a site is systematically stripped from Wiki (by a non-admin at that -- one who even called that site a "blog" in edit summaries, that's how much he hates it) and the RULE that was allegedly being broken was never given other than a vague "too many links"? And how were the intentions of the webmaster in question proven in the first place? "Spam" is an ugly word, JzG. And what "misleading terms" are you referring to?
Is it "playing nice" to come to an agreement that 7 or so links are fine -- and then break that agreement? (ha, though I can see what would happen already if you were to actually stick to that agreement: 7 links would go up, and then sometime down the road a Clinkophonist or Evrik or someone else with good taste in websites tries to add a link, and that link would be attributed to the Fish Eaters web-person who would then be accused once again of not "playing nice." Nevermind that Catholic Answers, a lay-run organization, can be linked to a thousand times.)
"Dissenting Catholic viewpoint" - dissenting from what? Have you read the Contact page of the site? I have seen you tell others that the site "doesn't accept the authority of Vatican II," which is a absolutely untrue and has always been untrue. I am sure you are not intentionally lying, but that sort of error gets spread around like a meme and causes harm, JzG.
Now seriously: can all this stop? Can the site be linked to per the agreement (7 links), clearly labelled "traditional," and this silliness come to an end?
The site was linked to over 100 times. Of this there is no doubt; it is clear, admitted, and was even admitted with no shame -- brought up by the webmaster HERSELF -- during the RfC against Dominick because the site owner had no idea that there was something wrong with having that many links. But no harm was intended, and I doubt harm was caused in fact (and I'd bet that Catholic Answers and other lay Catholic sites are linked numerous times). The question "How many times is considered 'spam'?" was asked repeatedly. No answers were given; instead, the site was purged and labelled "linkspam."
The goal was to teach about traditional Catholicism, not to gain personally (FE is a non-commercial site). All of the links (minus the one error on the stub) were on relevant entries and almost all linked directly to relevant pages at Fish Eaters, not to the site's index page (and not all links were added by the webmaster). And there was none of that about linking to one's own site on the WP:EL when the links were added (this stuff started in September (with Dominick -- who apparently hates the site for political reasons and because of personal skirmishes with the webmaster -- stripping out links, calling it a "blog" and such -- all while adding links to totally bogus sites. Check out the page on "St. Brigid", for ex., waaaay back in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brigid_of_Ireland&diff=28144113&oldid=26628291 October Look at what he replaced the link to FE with!); the site was then purged by you and Dominick and others in December, at Christmastime).
It's just gotten silly, JzG -- and the fact that FE is not even linked to from the entry "traditionalist Catholics" is -- well, it's a loss for everyone interested in the topic, frankly. FE is one of the few pan-trad sites out there, and the only trad site (of any variety) out there with such explicit and extensive information on trad Catholic practices (go to "that domain"+/beingcatholic.html or "that domain"+/customs.html). The site is for FSSP types, SSPX types, sedes -- all trads (those who accept Benedict XVI as Pope and accept VII as a validly convened ecumenical Council -- as do the people who run the site -- and those who don't), and all (all Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, atheists) are welcome at the forum. But somehow the site got a "fringe" label, is now apparently officially blacklisted, and no amount of trying to clarify things seems to work. Come on, man.
Can't we go back to the original agreement and stop the madness?
That is for values of "no harm" which included a brief but highly bitter edit war. And the answer is: no. Because the most recent example I found was a link to the "text of Providentissimus Deus in English" - which turns out to be available from the Vatican site as well. Why add a link to a dissenting website when the original is available from the source? And that's been my problem all along. The links are introduced when other links form more neutral sites may be available, the link descriptions and edit summaries are often misleading. Nobody has infinite patience, especially not me. Per policy we recognise this, and don't extend indefinite latitude to people. Just zis Guy you know?16:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Just looked that link up on the entry "Providentissimus Deus." It was added by Malachias111 in DECEMBER, before "the purge"! (the Vatican's website only goes back to Leo XIII, so anything earlier than Providentissimus wouldn't be found there, BTW -- but I guess someone thinking they're doing Wiki a favor by adding link to a text had better not add a handy link they happen to know and had best do that research before typing! Or else! "The Encyclopedia YOU edit" is more like "The Encyclopedia YOU edit in the EXACT way we want you to or any site you link to gets smeared").
The "edit war" was what -- one hour of one night in December when Dominick started hacking away at things after lying his ass off and then got admins to join in -- right in the middle of arbitration about that very matter.
There was never any misleading link summary added by anyone associated with FE.
And, once again, I am not sure what you think the website is "dissenting" against, but it'd be nice if you were to clarify before throwing words like that around. You can read the "About this Website" page and see what it says. Ask any "in-communion-with-Rome, non-dissenting, Pope-loving Catholic" if there's a problem there. Sheesh -- talk about the need for "infinite patience."
When adding links, it's always best to look for the most authoritative source. Which in this case was trivially easy to find. As to when it was added, I don't actually care that much. The fact that every time I searched for links to fisheaters from Wikipedia I was finding ones I had not previously found indicates a problem. The edit war was conducted by the site owner re-inserting links to her own site after they were reverted by an admin (and I don't mean me, I was not an admin back then). I had never heard of the site before that edit war. In general people who scream censorship are usually pushing a POV. It is not an invariable rule, but the exceptions are rare indeed. I don't think I'm likely to be persuaded on this. Just zis Guy you know?18:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I agree that it is best to look for the most authoritative source. That isn't a point of contention. The point of contention is smearing a site because someone else failed to do so.
The site owner, as said, admitted to adding many links, something she did not know was against the (unwritten) rule. You say that "indicates a problem." Well, the site owner was informed of that, a deal was made, you broke the deal, now the site is banned.
There was an edit war, yes. Dominick --a NON-ADMIN-- and you -- another NON-ADMIN -- and a bunch of other NON-ADMINS started stripping the site out of Wikipedia. Site owner reacts (and is later slammed for the 3RR rule when Dominick and you were doing the same thing that night). Admin gets in the mix -- how was the FE webmaster supposed to know? By the star next to the admin's name in the edit summaries? What she saw was a gang-bang by NON-ADMINS, one of whom she was in arbitration with and had an RfC against. She reacted normally. Passionately, albeit, but normally.
The site has been smeared ever since.
Nobody "smeared" a site because "someone" failed to look for a better one. The site was removed because it was spammed all across the project often with misleading link summaries. And the site owner edit-warred about it. Non-admins started removing it, admins reviewed the actions and stepped in, blocking the site owner. Linkspamming was done. Comparing this site with other sites is also misleading, as there is no evidence that there is any kind of editorial board behind this site, as there is for some of the others - and because two wrongs never do make a right. A calm approach might have yielded a different result. I have had the same or similar exchanges several times since, and have not been persuaded: I dislike linkspammers and I dislike POV pushers. And I am a very evil and heartless person in that once my natural tendency to assume the best of people has been beaten down, I very rarely change my mind about them. Please direct further arguments to dev/null. Just zis Guy you know?18:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Then we're just alike in our natural tendencies. If you prefer lying ("misleading link summaries," "spammed all across the project," etc.) and war rather than sticking to your word, then fine, Chapman. What happened has been recounted, but you are, indeed, an evil and heartless person. Just know that I tried to work things out with you.
Up to a point: the misleading link summaries are a matter of record, the misleading or absent edit summaries are a matter of record, the hundred-odd links inserted or reinserted by the site owner per WP:SPAM are a matter of record, the war was the making of the site owner, also a matter of record, and if it had been one or two links instead of an ever-increasing "give me an inch and I'll take me a mile" number, an acommodation could certainly have been reached. But I am a wicked rouge admin alright. Mind you, the fact that you believe removing links to a website promoting a particualr point of view is in some way evil (rather than my unwillingness to reassess people once I've been forced to believe the worst of them) then we are not alike in any meaningful respect. Just zis Guy you know?22:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
the misleading link summaries are a matter of record: then let's see some
the misleading or absent edit summaries are a matter of record: now it's matter of not using edit summaries???? Sheesh... when adding an external link, that is pretty much handled automatically, isn't it?
the hundred-odd links inserted or reinserted by the site owner per WP:SPAM are a matter of record: INSERTED yes, not reinserted, and as said, the owner saw no rule being broken
the war was the making of the site owner, also a matter of record: yes, and how it happened is explained above
if it had been one or two links instead of an ever-increasing "give and I'll take me a mile" number an acommodation could certainly have been reached: an accomodation was reached. It was agreed that seven links was not "too many." You broke that agreement.
removing links to a website promoting a particular point of view is in some way evil: well, if, for ex., the page is on traditional Catholicism and the link is to a page on said topic, a "particular point of view" makes sense, non? And a page on the Feast of St. Joseph linked to from the entry "St. Joseph" with a link clearly labelled "a traditional Catholic site" and listed alongside a link to an Orthodox site, a Protestant site -- for crying out loud! There is no "point of view" that isn't standard Catholic stuff on all those Feast pages and "how to" pages. Do you know what Ecclesia Dei is?
Presentin a viewpoint that you oppose, but one that countless Christians and academics do hold, in fact, isn't "white washing". Your viewpoint isn't the only one that should be represented. --Downey D20:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppetReply
Christians who are connected to diploma mills maybe, but academics no. And to make this clear: people with unaccredited degrees are not academics as unaccredited degrees cannot get you a job in academia. Arbusto03:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for your comments on NOR. My protest statement was reverted by Slimvirgin. Can she do this - isn't that a violation of wiki-rules? Whatever the case, you are right. The only reason why I wish for an RFC is simply to get a consensus view of whether to keep Slimvirgins edits on April 10th, keep my edits to her edits which offers a safety net against abuse, keep the original version prior to April 10th or work on another version that adds a safety net for abusive editors. When consensus forms for one or the other, I will support the community; regardless of whether or not they agree with me. Sorry for the shouting. But I was insulted when I couldn't reply, and Slimvirgin critiqued my edits when I couldn't reply - which she knew I couldn't reply. That is nasty stuff and I felt obligated to respond in no uncertain terms about what occured at NOR. God, all we wished for is to have our questions answered, consensus to form for one thing or another and then move on. We got personal insult, elitist references to our number of edits, cult associations (which in my case is totally bogus)..etc. Thanks again. --Northmeister00:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I see. I simply archived material. Your comments are in my archive. I responded to you, that more or less your impression of that editor is not mine. That's the best I can express to you here. If your open to why I feel this way, you can email me, and I will explain how things got with this one editor the way they did.
My reply to you was as follows: "Your right. I am done with that, as I had my say on it. I will withhold my opinion on the her though. Thank you for the advice. I am always willing to listen. --Northmeister 01:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Northmeister/Archive22902"" -
I was referring to NOR TALK. But, after discussions with others, I decided the best option to allow the community to have a say and to form a consensus was to have and RFC or vote. Further the continued personal attacks and insults lodged my way by Slimvirgin had to responded to; put yourself in my shoes...What impression did her insults give you of me? Would you simply allow others to form an opinion of you that was false, from someone who has a long history of abusive behavior towards you? I couldn't and it should not have been the point at NOR:talk anyway. The point was, is, and always was - lets reach consensus, and then lets move on. But, if one reads the discussions, all I got in return and others got was insult and abusive rhetoric. --Northmeister01:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) Northmeister, I apologize for saying revert. I meant to say that you REMOVED my comment and reply from your talk page. But that is not the issue. It is your talk page and you can archive it when ever you choose. The point of my remark was to jog your memory about my comment and your reply. regards, FloNighttalk01:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Flo, you keep insisting this and I understand fully. What is the problem with gathering consensus and discussion civilly? I am considering and RFC or vote in order to put an end to this stuff. What is the problem with that? You have an opinion of Slimvirgin which is not mine. Like I said, this stuff doesn't come out of the blue, it is built up over time, and I can provide why. I have nothing to hide and I simply feel that what has occurred at NOR is wrong and in violation of actual policy. To object to a violation of policy and to repeated personal insults might make everyone in the universe hate me...so be it. But, without those who stand up and say 'enough already' then where would this world be? Wouldn't you agree to a straw poll or RFC that would clearly indicate consensus like my proposal above, let us all move on (I have repeatedly stated I would accept whatever consensus says), and be done with this? I would of moved on days ago, but Slimvirgin chose to critique my edit without my having an ability to respond, insult me as a 'cultist' or 'LaRouche' follower or whatnot (all of which is highly untrue) all while she knew I could not respond by my word. So I notified the one I gave my word to what I was to do (not so much as participate in discussion - but to propose an RFC, protest what has occurred etc.)..and she reverted that. Is that right? While you have every right to defend Slimvirgin, I ask you take a step back and see what really has occurred by reading the questions and responses. (JzG - if you wish to have this stuff removed to my talk page let me know or move it there - with my permission - as we shouldn't clog up your talk page with our discussion - I won't move it there unless you wish me too - sorry again). --Northmeister01:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Northmeister, I am offering you my opinion after carefully looking at the situation. I didn't leave you the message to help SlimVirgin. I left you the message to help you. : ) I honestly think you are making a mistake. Pursuing this will not bring you satisfation. It will merely continue your dispute. I truly think it is in YOUR best interest to put this behind you. Northmeister, coincidentally, the only time that I needed similar advice JzG was the person that gave it to me. If I remember correctly, it tooks several message from JzG to turn my thinking around. In my situation, JzG's advice probably changed my whole experience Wikipedia experience in a positive way. All that said, these messages are just suggestions. You need to do what you think is best for your situation. regards, --FloNighttalk02:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I really appreciate your advice and like I said I will take it all in when considering matters. Email me Flo and give me a full critique there so as not to use up talk space or whatnot. I am interested in why you think I am making the wrong decision in RFC. Before I take any further steps I would like to know your complete reasons and email is best to do that. Anyone who gets me to think, and you and JzG, and others have; I really admire. Email me and let me know more about your reasoning. I am actually a pretty reasonable fellow, and not what some paint me to be. I just don't like rudeness or insults directed towards myself or especially others with legitimate questions; as was done at NOR:Talk Thanks. --Northmeister02:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
No need to respond to this, just wanted to say thanks for the excellent comments on the Dom PP Afd. That really demonstrated that you give some of these issues serious thought. You also made me laugh with the comment on the talk page regarding conspiracy theorists and a handful of papers on the talk page. Not that it would get me to change my vote on that, although the article is going to be kept regardless. The real problem is the OCCM reference, which I think is going to lead to eternal edit warring, especially as the compromise solution I tried was immediately reverted. -- JJay02:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, JJay. I never claimed to be perfect, but whan I am wrong I do tend to admit it. Your point re edit warring is why I think it's important to settle the issue of what the list is for in clear and unambiguous terms. I think if we can agree that, the edit warring can stop - whether that results ina separate article on the special pleading of unaccreditd schools is another matter. Just zis Guy you know?08:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion
You made a fatal mistake in your recent reblock of Jason Gastrich by choosing 2006-04-15 instead of 2007-04-15 as the expiration date. This means that the block is essentially over as of now. Please reblock. --69.117.7.6304:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well thank you! Easter it is for me (obviously) - I have indeed done my part singing and administering the chalice this morning, and am now happily removing old paper from the ceiling of my front bedroom prior to repairing the plasterwork. Just zis Guy you know?15:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
I have made a substantial effort to explain every jot and tittle of my edits. None of them promote any bias. I hope you will consider the fact basis for these edits rather than simply reverting them because you do not like my "being bold" (as we are encouraged to do) and/or you personally advocate abortion (possibly even partial-birth abortion) as a good thing for those who choose it. ____G_o_o_d____12:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have made factual edits to the Partial-birth abortion article. If you have sources that contradict those facts, please let me know. For example, the statement of Fitzsimmons was changed to note the date of 1997 - so i made a corresponding change to note that the 2200 number is also from the late 1990s. The same standard needs to be applied to all information included. If the date is so important for the Fitzsimmons comment, then the date is likewise important for the AGI data. And I also had to correct the flase information that Fitzsimmons made the statement as the former Exec director - he was the director when he made the statement and he was expressly retractin and apologizing for the previous misinformation (lie) he had put out during a TV appearance. This is well documented by the mainstream press. And the AGI data is no problem, but even the wikipedia article notes that the Alan Guttmacher Institute is in the business of abortion advocacy. ____G_o_o_d____11:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I know I am throwing a lot info at you all at once. I apologize for pressing so hard to make the additions and corrections. It is important the article be factual and unbiased. I think everyone can admit that it is hard to write an article about PBA wherin the reader feels good about embracing PBA availability as good public policy. That fact ought not skew the neutrality of the article so that it read as if the editors worked overtime to make PBA seem reasonable. When presented with the facts, most people could never reach the conclusion that it does seem reasonable. ____G_o_o_d____12:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
The edits you have made are tendentious, and in many cases not supported by consensus. Your POV comes across in every word you write on that article at them moment. Just zis Guy you know?21:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
My POV is nice to note. But I am posting sourced facts. Please stop relying on my POV as a strawman. I hope you will not abuse your admin status out of frustration. I will pause now for the res of the day, trusting that you will not make changes that run contrary to the many mainstream references I have provided. First you were pissed because I did not explain my changes in detail, now that I am giving a ridiculous amount of detail you rely on my POV as a reason to ignore my mainstream sources. You can do better - I know you would not be an admin otherwise. ____G_o_o_d____22:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Nice try, Harvard Med School's dictionary (the link I provided that you must not have read)does not redirect to IDX. It has a nice medical definition. ____G_o_o_d____23:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Nice try, it's not a medical term it's a non-medical term coined by political opponents of the process; the fact that one or two medical sources take the trouble to document it does not change that. But it's good to know that your POV still shines through so clearly, it makes it easier to spot. Just zis Guy you know?09:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have posted a www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=partial-birth%20abortionmainstream medical source to the contrary of your POV. And www.intelihealth.com/cgi-bin/dictionary.cgi?book=Medical&adv=0&cgi=1&t=9276&p=%7Ebr%2CIHW%7C%7Est%2C9276%7C%7Er%2CWSIHW000%7C%7Eb%2C*%7C&WEB_HOME=%2FIH%2F&MIVAL=ihtIH&WEB_HOST=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.intelihealth.com&va=partial-birth+abortion here is another one (Main Entry: par•tial-birth abortion, an abortion in the second or third trimester of pregnancy in which the death of the fetus is induced after it has passed partway through the birth canal, from the Harvard Medical School website, Merriam-Webster Medical Dictonary, 2002). Sources conflict on this issue. As an administrator, you should realiz that the solution is not to impose the POV of the source you prefer. ____G_o_o_d____21:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
The Resilient Barnstar
JzG, this barnstar is for your having the guts to listen to criticism, and then change your mind, when you realized you were taking the wrong side in the Dominionist political parties debate. Thankfully the result was delete. GUÐSÞEGN – UTEX – 05:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Comments on Talk. Medics use the term "heart attack" in discussion with non-medics, but that does not make it a medical term. Ditto PBA. It is a political, not a medical term. Just zis Guy you know?08:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
User:Arbustoo keeps vandalising my user page. He is also vandalising Bill Gothard's talk pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bill_Gothard#Awful_entry by deleting a conversation. He's only doing this to hide his intentions and avoid the question posted to him. He also deleted it off his own talk page. He needs to be watched and warned for his behavior. --Head Like A Hole09:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppetReply
This guy borders on insanityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arbustoo&diff=prev&oldid=48976176. Note the edit summary "nobody has been banned, that's in your own mind." Arbusto09:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You deleted and protected this with {{deletedarticle}} with the comment
Two "delete" AfDs is enough, I think
But, really there were two unrelated AFDs. Based on what the AFDs say, the first was an ad for a specific company. The next was on the topic generally. In the third I don't know, but you didn't claim it to be a repost. Unless there's a problem of frequent reposts or vandalism, or attacks, there really shouldn't be protection. Protection policy seems to indicate that protection is to be used very selectively. Similiar articles are blue-linked from Comparison of content management systems. At a minimum, I suggested those should be deleted first, before you reach the conclusion that such a topic has been thoroughly rejected. The fact one article is deleted, doesn't me no article, on the same topic, can ever be made. -Rob20:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You wrote: Keep seems to pass WP:BIO, but needs careful monitoring per WP:AUTO. User:WayneRay defintely needs to step back from editing the article. Just zis Guy you know? 12:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
When this delete notice first occurred a few months ago I rewrote and really did try to make my page un-biased and neutral, maybe if you have time, take a look and see why it seems to garner criticism. I will be re-writing it to tone it down soon. Away in New Brunswick this weekend for a major book launching of my next book. www3.sympatico.ca/cpa CPA Bookstore WayneRay14:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRayReply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello JzG. Please note that I have removed the {{hoax}} template from the Gay Fuel article and have provided a number of reliable and verifiable references for the subject. Would this be sufficient for you to withdraw your nomination? Can't sleep, clown will eat me17:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, JzG. I have answered to your question regarding "J. Allen Hynek" on my user discussion site, and here I would like to tell you, that before I http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bwilcke&diff=49374613&oldid=49299214 explained at length the trouble with the edit-warrior as background picture - just in case you are interested in that (I don't know whether you read already that answer to which I just added a P.S. No. 2, but then felt, I should delete the lengthy answer for reasons given also in P.S. No. 2). -- Bwilcke01:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
This is functionally equivalent to "he is bad, therefore I am good". Actually the whole Vaughan nonsense has got completely out of hand. I am quite aware that VaughanWatch is a disputatious troll. Just zis Guy you know?08:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I've responded to that request in addition to my scorched earth campaign against VaughanWatch (well done Curps indeed). No conclusive evidence of sockpuppetry at this time. Mackensen(talk)11:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Would a WP:RFCU be out of line on a suspected sockpuppet from an AFD I was involved in who decided to vote in a retaliatory manner on my RfA? man, i know even asking this question, i'm going to get yelled at for this... RasputinAXP c20:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
If you have genuine and substantive reason to suspect that it's a sock, then there is every reason to ask - but RFCU is under constant pressure, so there probably needs to be evidence of edits in main space. You have a good reputation, you'll not be trout-slapped for it. What's the sock account? Just zis Guy you know?20:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I only worry about the trout-slapping because my RfA's in progress. The sock's User:Almost_Famous, most likely of either User:Sevenlinefeatures (recipient of an indefinate block) or User:Katherinejohnson. Questions were raised because (as per usual) Almost Famous showed up as a new user and immediately wandered over to the same AfDs that Sevenlinefeatures was involved with. You know the drill. An anon IP also popped up and vandalized my Talk page in response to the AfD as well. It's possible Katherinejohnson is a puppet of the meat variety for Sevenlinefeatures or possibly the master of both accounts. Without a RFCU, we won't know. The timing, as I've said, is suspicious. Retaliatory voting aside, the original AfD has been speedied as a fundamental recreation of another AfD'd article anyway, so the point is moot, I suppose. Ignore me, I was thinking out loud. :P RasputinAXP c21:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Also, even if it is a sockpuppet, it doesn't look like one vote will effect your (so far) very succesful RfA, so it may simply be a waste of time to take it to checkuser unless they do something else with the sock or start making more socks. JoshuaZ20:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I've been watching some of the editing by User:Arbustoo and I know you have too, so I wanted to give you my 2 cents. Please keep an eye on him. He is obviously using the Gastrich sockpuppet thing to get his way on Wikipedia. Look at his track record for nominating Gastrich sockpuppets. He's frequently quick to do so and wrong. He's just doing this to automatically get his way in every case, even though Gastrich is likely long gone and even though Gastrich could care less about a lot of the entries these alleged Gastrich socks are contributing to.
So, please keep an eye on him. I know you like him and he can do very little wrong in your eyes, but be that as it may, he's still using the alleged Gastrich sockpuppet hysteria to get his way on entries and remove opposing viewpoints. I wonder how life would be if he was simply disallowed to deem anyone a sockpuppet for 30 days . . . Maybe then, he'd find a way to reach consensus with the community, again. --Concerned Citizen109:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppetReply
The only reason this isn't the funniest exchange I've seen all day is because I'm watching Robin Williams. As it is, I found the "even though Gastrich could care less about a lot of the entries these alleged Gastrich socks are contributing to" especially amusing. Looks like Gastrich is getting a bit annoyed at being caught so quickly and so often, but he hasn't learned a thing from the experience. - WarriorScribe03:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I think it is very unfair for my page to be deleted. I have worked very hard at my career and the information provided is very accurate and not false. If you were to google my name you would see that it is not bogus. The harsh criticisms are totally uncalled for. In regards to my "website sucks badly," instead of trying to tear a person down, offer suggestions on how my site can be improved. I have never vandalized anyone's page, information or work on here. I view Wikipedia as a valuable resource and I think that it's wrong for others to tear down something that you've worked long and hard at. It is not a vanity page, it's factual and true.
Rohn Padmore
Are you saying you added it yourself? If so please see WP:AUTO. Removal of an article is not a judgment on the quality of a person, it is a judgment on whether there is sufficient coverage in neutral secondary sources to allow us to ensure that the article itself is neutral. WP:BIO and WP:BLP are two guidelines wich apply, WP:NPOV and WP:V are the policies which underpin hem (and WP:RS is another guideline which also applies). Just zis Guy you know?08:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
"{{{1}}} is not accredited by any recognised accreditation body. As such, its degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions."
I don't have the same reading as Gas...uh, I mean, "Whore of Babylon," but then, it won't be the first time. I think we all realize that there are unaccredited institutions and there are diploma mills, and the latter will necessarily be the former. The reverse won't always be true, but it generally is, and so it's worth noting, as appropriate, for each institution for which some advocate of POV-pusher wants to insist be represented by an article at Wikipedia. - WarriorScribe05:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I can't see any objection to this template anyway. The wording is strictly neutral (but then I would say that - I have a feeling I suggested it, or something very like it, myself). It ensures that the form of words is identical - and identicaly neutral - in every case. Just zis Guy you know?08:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
