I just realized that you are not an admin? Yet you seem to do much admin-work. I will gladly nominate you, if you'd accept. There's just one thing, the nomination is unlikely to succeed if you have fewer than ~1000 edits. And I honestly have no idea how many edits you have made, from the size of your talk page, it must be easily >1000, but the "weekly" statistics seems to be broken, saying you have a glorious total of five. dab(ᛏ) 19:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to interrupt, but I think this might help: [1]. Cheers, Smoddy (tgec) 19:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
ah, yes of course. Well, your hesitation only reconfirms my impression (of your "mopworthiness"), but it's true that the nomination would be jeopardied seeing your account is quite recent. I'll get back to you in a month or so, or, should I forget about it, feel free to ask me to nominate you any time. regards, dab(ᛏ) 19:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Whatever your actual admin status, you are already behaving like an admin should (ie in a trustworthy and workmanlike manner). You might as well get the mop to save the wear and tear on your knees when scrubbing the floors dealing with vandals. I independently came to this page to ask if you wanted to be nominated but I see that I am not the first -- well, that's not surprising. I'm inclined to press for your nomination now, even with your relatively short editing record but by all means if you want to wait a month or two more... -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:28, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
You should re-think your position on adminship. You seem to be doing an awful lot of admin-like work - I think Wikipedia would do well to have you as an admin and it would confirm you in a position in which you seem to be acting. Guettarda 23:27, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for swinging by the Bad Brains article. Auto movil 15:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And once again, the watchlist lit up. Thank you for Abyss. Auto movil 18:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I wrote part of Abyss, as well as a good portion (now buried) of the Bad Brains article. What's your favorite field of inquiry? Auto movil 18:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
hey and thanks for all the help making the jaclyn victor and gemlang page
i just made this page Paul Moss, he's a judge from Malaysian idol, but this other user claimed it was vanity and not notable and put it for deletion, can you go vote to keep it?
"A page should not be cast away as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required for a page to be included in Wikipedia, and therefore, lack of fame should be completely ignored in deletion debates."
please witness the signing of a declaration of such importance that i decided it was worth making a new entry in your user talk page just to promote it, at my user page. THE KING 07:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi there! I was wondering about something... it seems that many new users are creating stub articles with their information, where that information might be better off in some larger article. Would it be a good idea to add some info to the welcoming template stating that adding to an existing article is sometimes more appropriate than creating a new one? Or something like that, anyway. Yours, Radiant_* 09:49, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Now that you have removed Ms. Brown's claim to have a physically impossible vocal range of 4.5 octaves, I will refrain from vandalizing this page again.
Either Ms. Brown or her lover, Mr. Jrwakaara, is a liar. If you listen to the music of this singer, you will not hear a more than average vocal range. If her vocal range would be as wide as she or her lover claims, she would most probably show it off in her recordings.
In my opinion, Ms. Brown is a person who overestimates herself by far. There are hundreds of millions of average housewives who sing at least as good as Ms. Brown.
Sincerely yours,
N. N.
(fancier of female vocals)
slander and abuse again
My sincere apologies for deleting vandals comments posted here. inmotion 14:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the removal. It's just that I saw someone had linked to "What, me worry?" and it led nowhere so I thought a brief stub would be in order. A redirect to Alfred E. Neuman is a better idea. Thanks for the note.
It's odd how sometimes one will run into another writer/editor through a number of different axes.
The 'abyss' article is part of a little fiefdom I maintain related to Aleister Crowley -- a difficult category due to the strong opinions that many people hold on him, which tend to blossom into POV entries. I'm interested in your work. You can see a good example of mine, if you'd like, in the early version of 'Oceanic Whitetip Shark' that's discussed on my user page.
Thanks again for good edits. Auto movil 17:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Copy of My Plea at the Tacumwah Votes for Deletion Page
Tacumwah was a real person, and this is not a vanity article. The article was supposed to link to Chief Jean Baptiste de Richardville, her son, who was a very important historical figure. I mistyped the link, which I am going to correct. This article should be expanded, with reliable, factual information, NOT deleted.
The reason I have left it at sub-stub level for now is that I have had a hard time separating some of the mythology about Tacumwah from the facts. Her name has been used for a large youth sports complex in my area, which has prompted some of the same edifying mythology for young people as for Michikinikwa (Little Turtle). Since you are a Briton, and not a resident of northeast Indiana/northwest Ohio, you are probably not familiar with these moral tales Probably the most famous is th story of how Little Turtle fired off his arrows to the four winds to set the boundaries of a place where the young braves could always go to learn the skills and values proper to the young men of any tribe. It's a complete fairy tale made up some 150 years later, when Camp Chief Little Turtle at the Anthony Wayne Boy Scout Reservation was founded. However, unlike Little Turtle, Tacumwah doesn't seem to have inspired as much genuine scholarship, at least that I can uncover. I'm also busy with several other Wiki projects (like Costas Georgiou, and school assignments right now, and I haven't had the time to go digging in the library.
I'm planning to go to a historical society meeting on the preservation of the Richardville treaty house in Fort Wayne, Indiana, which is scheduled to take place in a few months, when school is out for the summer. There should be many more knowledgable persons than I in attendance, who can give me some reliable info and point me to good sources. Can we tolerate the stub for two more months? --Jpbrenna 17:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. From his comments there, I'm still not clear on why he chose to revert rather than creating a separate page for them, but maybe now it's been protected we can discuss it in a more productive manner. --Calair 01:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have a request. Would you please create an article on the philosopher and student of Edmund Husserl, Eugene Fink? Though I have read about him, I do not have any biographical information about Fink.
Thank you.
Mel, I have been attempting to protect this article from a Ogadeni nationalist who refuses to admit that Ogaden is part of Ethiopia. Judging from your edit, which I have just reverted, you are the anon or somehow made a bizarre edit that returned the information that had been NPOVed. I would appreciate a clarification. Thanks, BanyanTree 19:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments, however, there was an article at one time about this book which I specifically remember adding. Several people have contacted me about it, and all I have to say is if you keep deleting it and then bothering me about why it isn't there, Wikipedia's screwed.
Your comment from your RFA: "(no marking something for 'speedy delete' with the safety net of an admin to decide whether I'd misinterpreted the rules, etc.)"...Being an admin doesn't mean you can't tag something for speedy deletion to get a second opinion, rather than delete it yourself, even if you have the power. Joyous 02:43, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I found a long biographical piece on Eugene Fink, but it is in German which I can't read. Anyway, here is the link: http://www.ph-freiburg.de/eufink/vita.htm
Regards
Varada
I have just started this article. I was adding contents and thought that, let us first add something and then wikified it later, give me some time, i will do it in proper wiki format.
I try to write neutral, several users on wiipedia are insisting I am POV oriented at a "personal" level. I want to make sure my posts are neutral. You are welcome to check any topic listed under "Topics I whatch", some are redirects.
The Barnstar of Diligence may be awarded in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service. Everyday you post stuff to newbies, you hunt vandals down, you improve spelling and extras on mulltiple articles. Hence:
Minor edits are often-overlooked, but essential, contributions to the Wikipedia. The Minor Barnstar is awarded for making minor edits of the utmost quality. For the number of as you call: "futher tidying & Wiki-links". Hence:
The Working Man's Barnstar may be awarded to those who work tirelessly and endlessly on the more laborious or repetitive of Wikipedia tasks. Your average wiki day is over 4 hours.
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar may be awarded to especially tireless Wikipedians that contribute an especially large body of work without sacrificing quality. Goes without saying actualy. All of the above leads to this.
I'd give you the regular barn star but I do not see any articles you have created due to the overwhelming number of other edits. And I though I was good. --Cool CatMy Talk 09:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you look for an admin post, you have my full support. --Cool CatMy Talk 09:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Do you accept the awards? :) Didnt want to offend you somehow if thats the case. --Cool CatMy Talk 02:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Someone falls for one of my really lame, totally in bad taste April fools jokes!
Slight intoxication may have also been a factor. El_C 09:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm User:PMelvilleAustin with a new user name - i know perfectly well what the MoS says about birth and death dates - i helped draft that section - which is why i changed them. PMA 23:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I was always taught that the convention was to spell out integers ten and under, except at the beginning of a sentence ("Fourteen members came to the convention") and when refering to measurements ("8 mm of blood, doctor!"). This doesn't seem to be an Americanism, either; both the Associated Press [2] and The Guardian[3] agree with me. Neutralitytalk 03:04, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry mate i didn't mean to upset you but the birth dates-death dates convention was reached after a long and painfull debate about which style to use (Encyclopædia Britannica, World Book, Microsoft Encarta or a new style) over the last few years - and some people still feel they shoud impose their preferences on articles - Adolf Hitler for example. We also had a bad battle with people that wanted to re name articles such as Charles, Prince of Wales to the fictional [[Charles Windsor]], one of them claiming titles were Nothing but British imperialist nonsense that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia!. I hope you can understand why i am wary after such incidents. PMA 09:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) (formerly User:PMelvilleAustin)
Personally i'd like to keep the full birth dates-death dates in brackets that is the current convention but i won't revert on Kellie or any of your other articles - different strokes for different folks. PMA
"Some people believe" does not make for a very informative article. Please identify who "some people" are. Meanwhile, do not delete facts about per capita GDP because they are factual and informative. That is enough for inclusion in the article. Thank you. -216.31.12.99
SlimVirgin suggested to ask for your help in developing a section called "Pursuit of happiness" for the Human article. Please read my comments at Talk:Human#Unclear_sections. I would like to start with Aristotle's eudaimonia and continue from there on, with different philosopher's attempts to describe such human aspect. ≈ jossi ≈ 05:35, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
Hi there, I see you been involved in reverting the user that's been vandalising various female cyclists. I've listed them at current vandalism. Looks like it's the same user over and over again, so hopefully someone will deal with it. Cheers. Anilocra 23:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to stink up your sysop nomination page with my comments to Sam Spade, but the hypocrisy of his implying that you're a troll while he sends incivil emails while side stepping policy demanded a reality check.--FeloniousMonk 20:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Seeing your comments on FMs page, I'd like to reply here.
As you know, all endeavours start with one small step.
There is no wikipedia policy whatsoever that requires Sam to make any kind of apology or in fact do much of anything at all, and yet he's made a first step at ending or at least softening the conflict between him and FeloniousMonk.
He certainly still has many outstanding issues, as you've been able to surmise from his statements. Even so, I've managed to convince him to make this one step at least. :)
I shan't try to advise FeloniousMonk on this issue (my previous attempts on that have ended in disaster I'm afraid) -however- I think the ball is in his court now. Perhaps you can help him out?
Kim, I genuinely appreciate your efforts with Sam, but once again Sam has squandered another opportunity to do the right thing. His statement left on my talk page was no apology, or at least not one for his actual transgression, - he apologized for his writing, not his behavior, and it was clearly not made in earnest. Futher, it was bracketed by a sentence stating I've been trolling and followed by an admonition to not troll. That's no apology, and I've treated it as such on my talk page.
If you can convince Sam to render an actual, earnest apology by rewriting his previous statement, I'll be happy to cease my my modest therapeutic and pedagogical efforts to educate Sam in the ways of righteous behavior and I'll be in your debt.--FeloniousMonk 15:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'd not hold my breath if I were you. It's obvious to me, from Kim Bruning's previous involvement, and from the tone of his remarks on SS's Talk page, that he's not the neutral, good-faith mediator that he presented himself to be. I'd forget this incident as just another SS escapade that leaves the characteristic bad taste in the mouth. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Right, it's a bit tricky for us to communicate directly. I almost made a mistake again. Let me think it over carefully and get back to you. Note that Sam Spade did in fact make several important concessions, including (importantly!) withdrawing copyvio allegations. Kim Bruning 15:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Kim, Sam's only concession in withdrawing his copyright vio claim was to reality, not to me. It was a non-starter, being mendacious and frivolous as Morvan noted. Sam's statement only accomplished adding insult to injury by hypocritically mislabeling me a troll, an error that any real apology will have to omit to be accepted. I genuinely wish you luck in your effort.--FeloniousMonk 16:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sometimes one comes across an act of vandalism. If this is a one-shot act of vandalism, then "rv vandal" may suffice as a comment on reverting. If there is any doubt about whether all real information has been retained, one might also want to mention the version to which one is reverting.
However, when a vandal has been misbehaving on a lot of pages it might be desirable to add the "contributions link" of the vandal. I have not come across such a case as yet, but if I would, could I in that case just enter the IP of the vandal, or must I add braces or something?
You have been around for a while, so I figured you might know...
Waiting in anticipation, Shinobu 21:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! Of course one might hope never to have any need of these artifices of reversion, but I fear the statistics are against that... Thanks again Mel! Shinobu 22:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think I stepped on some of your edits on Terri Schiavo when reverting some vandalism. Sorry bout that. The gremlins are busy all of a sudden. School must have gotten out. FuelWagon 23:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Following the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) regarding proper titling of ROC-/Taiwan-related topics, polls for each single case have now been started here. Please come and join the discussion, and cast your vote. Thanks. — Instantnood 06:25, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
congratulations. I've never seen so many support votes... it turns out that no nail-biting was required at all. dab(ᛏ) 08:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) File:Happyshatner.jpg
Congratulations, Mel. The many months of electoral tension are finally over. ;-) SlimVirgin(talk) 08:16, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Well done, Professor! And let me just say that it was my pleasure to support —and oppose— your nomination! El_C 08:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Faster than a speeding edit-revert, it's Admin-Man! Congrats! :) Grutness|hello? 09:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Um, you don't have to thank me. Mine was just a small vote among over 50+ of others, so are you going to leave them thank you messages as well? In any case, congratulations! Ethereal 10:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations, Sir. Oh, you're at Oxford, so rather than merely banning people you can rusticate them. That'll teach 'em! (Since I'm in very central Tokyo right now, I'm not quite sure whither I'd be rusticated. The computer-free home of the in-laws, I suppose.) But that's for later. What's the local tipple? Morrell is no more ... Brakspear, perhaps? Turn off the computer, pour yourself a pint; you can pick up the administrative mop and broom tomorrow. -- Hoary 10:29, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
Eh? I thought you were an admin already. Oh alright fine then, congrats from me too. :-) Kim Bruning 12:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
RedWolf got involved in the Korean Pottery situation. He didn't seem sympathetic to our efforts at compromise with the Korean authors and deleted their category. Perhaps you (Mr. Admin) could see if we could accomodate them a little. RedWolf says the category title should be something like Ceramics of Korea anyway to meet Wiki specs. Thanks for your copy edits on the article. I'm keeping an eye on it too. Comments welcome. WBardwin 10:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Here is his note from my talk page, in answer to my query on his talk page over the deletion. Hi. The reason the category was deleted was because it was listed on WP:CFD and there were no objections to the deletion after a week. RedWolf 07:35, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
In our exchange, he said he was not going to recreate the category for them, and that it should be in a different format/order anyway. I doubt our Korean friends even understand the voting procedure -- and I'm new enough I'm just starting to look it over. Whatever you can do would be helpful. Thanks. WBardwin 10:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No real hurry. I've been trying to come up with a Clay Products/Industry tree that could satisfy them while keeping both the British and American terminology (which does differ a bit). Once more Korean clay articles emerge, we could start making suggestions. WBardwin 11:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Congrats, and thanks for the message. I think you'll be an excellent admin...at the very least I'll be able to appeal to unblock me after Ed Poor bans me for insubordination ;) Guettarda 13:20, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
'Twas my pleasure to kick in a nomination. You deserved it. Thanks for the thanks. :^) Now, go! Do battle with those who would besmirch the good name of Wikipedia! - Lucky 6.9 15:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations. The high vote total is a strong endorsement by the community of your editing skill and tact. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:40, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Excellent, Mel, congratulations from me as well! Best wishes, Antandrus 04:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Gefeliciteerd! Since you evidently already have all the wisdom needed, I can only wish to you all the luck to complement that! Wishing you all the best, and cordially yours, Shinobu 06:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Will continue to edit today as possible (I'm at work ATM) and will definately do alot more work on it this evening to put it more into the proper style/formatting. Thank you!
Regarding your remarks on his nomination page, how would you characterize this exchange? [4]SlimVirgin(talk) 19:23, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
The distinction between "genuine" anti-Semitism (whatever that is) and the kind of "insensitivity" you say he displayed is a false one. Try replacing Jew with black in his outbursts, and see whether you would still defend it as non-racist insensitivity. The "slime that has been spread across Wikipedia"; "disgusting Jews" (but only unnamed other people are saying this, of course); "the likes of JJ and SV": that vocabulary cannot reasonably be described as mere insensitivity. It's the irrational singling out of a certain group of people for criticism on the grounds of their (presumed) ethnicity. What is the "slime that has been spread across Wikipedia" and who is spreading it? Is "slime" being defined here as material written by Jews? It's a confused and very stupid series of statements at best; and I feel that, if you're going to comment at all, you should challenge him to explain it. SlimVirgin(talk) 21:12, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
I feel you should ask him what he meant, and that you should remove your comment that he's not in the least anti-Semitic until you've established what he meant. His attempt at hyperbole accounts only for the first of his remarks; but it morphs into what I see as his real views about slime and disgusting Jews, and the likes of. If he had said these things after announcing he was from Stormfront, you'd have clamped down on him instantly; but because you've found yourself agreeing with him politically elsewhere, you're inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. But we are what we write on Wikipedia; intentions count for nothing, and in any event, only the most hardened anti-Semites will actually think of themselves as such. Most people who engage in anti-Semitism or racism are guilty only of insensitivity, short fuses, stupidity, and a lack of education, but that doesn't make it all right or less dangerous; the same applies to sexism and homophobia. These bigotries must be challenged whenever they appear, in whatever guise, not only when they have Stormfront tattooed on their foreheads. As I see it, Camaeleon's expressing exactly the same anti-Semitism as the middle-class-woman character in George Orwell's "Anti-Semitism in Britain": "Well, no one could call me anti-Semitic, but I do think the way these Jews behave is too absolutely stinking. The way they push their way to the head of queues, and so on. They’re so abominably selfish. I think they’re responsible for a lot of what happens to them.” [5] Chamaeleon very explicitly made this last point. My problem with what you wrote is that you've effectively excused him (which will encourage him), and you're a respected editor (and I also respect your intellect, and your background in philosophy). I therefore feel you have a responsibility, intellectual and moral, to remove your comment until you've challenged him regarding what he meant and have received a satisfactory response. SlimVirgin(talk) 22:01, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Then I'm confused, if you're not familiar with his political editing, as to why you wrote: "I don't see that he's anti-Semitic in the slightest, and ... I often agree with his political views." Asking him what he meant may get you further than you think, because he'll be unable or unwilling to explain, retract, or apologize, and that may tell you something: an editor who had inadvertently made a bigoted remark would apologize if challenged, not dig himself in even deeper. I repeat that I hope you will remove your comment, as you admit you're not sure what he meant. What you wrote will serve to encourage him. SlimVirgin(talk) 22:15, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Your somewhat leading question unfortunately doesn't ask him what he means by "slime," "disgusting Jews," or that the oppose comments made about him on his nomination page by Jayjg, SlimVirgin, and Mrfixter are the cause of anti-Semitism, particularly as these focused on C's lack of grasp of NOR and NPOV. I'm struggling to understand how saying of editors that they haven't understood a specific policy forces them into Judenhass if they're not already there. SlimVirgin(talk) 22:52, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
His answer is on his page; I responded with:
I'm not sure what your objection is. It should be obvious to you that my view was that you're not anti-Semitic, so I'm not trying to trick you into an admission (and besides, you insult my intelligence of you think that I wasn't aware that you'd see the discussion between SLimVirgin and me). If your answer to my question is 'no', what't the harm in giving it here? If I'm not to insult your intelligence, I can only assume that your answer is 'yes'. Feel free to delete this response; that makes no difference to anything. I'm not going to indulge you in private discussions about a public matter. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
He deleted my message without a response. I still suspect he's merely boorish and arrogant, but he seems unwilling (if you're right, unable) to deny that he holds anti-Semitic views. 12:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Anti-Semitic"? "Boorish"? "Arrogant"? Those are personal attacks. Please reread Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Let's all get along and concentrate our efforts on improving articles. :) Helpful Dave 13:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi there,
I'm David's (Chamaeleon's) girlfriend. I'm writing to you because I'm upset about all these arguments and accusations being made in regards to David. He will not respond on Wikipedia, only by email, because he is trying to make a fresh start. Wikipedia is a place for NPOV, and therefore this discussion should not even be happening; but I hate that people believe things that are not true and which are grossly unfair. So, to say what he has not:
David is the most honest, decent, moral, logical and caring person I have ever met. He doesn't have a racist bone in his body. He is even a vegan. How can a person whose career in life is linguistics, who has lived in 4 different countries, who has friends of many nationalites, be racist? He doesn't even think in terms of race, if he says "you" he means just the person(s) he is talking to, not their race, or religion or group. He has not gone into great detail with me about the discussions people on wiki have been having about him, so I cannot argue all points for him, but I know that he is upset that people have been given the wrong impression about him. All he wants is to make a fresh start on the project of Wikipedia which means so much to him. If David has vandalised or edited without sources, then that is one thing, but that is not being argued here. What is being argued is POV, which has no place here. Sincerely, Erin.--Chammy Koala 14:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, I was trying to defend him and his response was to reject the chance to make a clear statement that he's not anti-Semitic. He was, I should say, at the very least offensive and insensitive, and an apology for that (to the people involved) wouldn't have gone amiss either (he didn't say 'you' and mean the person he was talking to — he referred to other editors . And I'm afraid that veganism isn't inconsistent with racism, any more than is living in different countries, having friends of different nationalities, or working in linguistics. The only things that count are actions, and his actions here haven't helped him. If and only if he changes his behaviour, people's attitudes to him will change. (I don't understand, by the way, why making a fresh start entails not replying on Wikipedia but only in private.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I ended up on the Davos image from Chamaeleon's RFA. I have no idea whether or not Chamaeleon has anti-semitic tendencies, but I couldn't find any indication that he does, so that's what I said. For the record, I am completely and utterly opposed to anything as debile as Anti-Semitism (and I have gone to the fringes of blocking policy in order to kick Neo-Nazis off Wikipedia). I am also opposed to attempts of conflating a political position of Anti-Zionism with a racist position of Anti-Semitism (which is not implying that I hold anything like an Anti-Zionist viewpoint, personally). I was completely nonplussed with SV's irrational behaviour on the Davos image talk page, where I first testified that I knew from first hand experience that the star was supposed to be a sheriff badge, after which Lupo showed that it was even labelled 'sheriff'. I do not think there is any remaining reasonable evidence as to any Anti-Semitic intent of that Davos protest now, and I do hope you did not perceive me as assuming an 'alter ego' in that discussion. dab(ᛏ) 09:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
PS, I thought your comment
without the discussion here I'd have gone away thinking that Rumsfeld was being attacked with a truncheon by Harpo Marx
was actually very funny :o) dab(ᛏ) 10:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Dab, please stop attacking me. I was objecting to your original research. We go by what published sources say on Wikipedia, not by our personal experience. If you were tomorrow to see with your own two eyes George Bush being shot, you could not edit that into Wikipedia until someone else had published it, and even then, you would not be allowed to add your own eyewitness account. I realize that seems counter-intuitive, but there are in fact very good reasons for it, namely that news organizations and other major publishers incorporate a series of checks and balances (or are supposed to), whereby material passes through many hands (reporters/writers, copy editors, page editors, managing editors, and sometimes lawyers; and peer-review if it's an academic subject) before being published. Wikipedia does not have those resources, so if a Wikipedia editor claims to have witnessed something, it can't be checked. That is why I was objecting to your input, because you seemed to be insisting that your personal knowledge of the event was superior to published material about it. I didn't mind the personal knowledge (it was just an image page), but I objected to you deleting other references I added to counter your personal knowledge: I think you deleted the Little Green Footballs material three times, even though it's a notable and respected political weblog (said to be the most-read weblog in Washington), and other articles published by credible publications supported what it was saying. Even if those published sources wrote an entirely false description of the Davos event you attended, and you knew it was false, Wikipedia would still have to use their account, not yours. To have the record corrected, you would have to, for example, arrange to be interviewed by a credible newspaper about your eyewitness account. Only then could Wikipedia refer to the new published information. See Wikipedia:No original research. Anyway, enough said. That's my explanation. It may seem counter-intuitive but it's not irrational. Please let it go. SlimVirgin(talk) 10:36, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
There was unpublished evidence in the form of a respected editor's testimony that the sheriff's star was a sheriff's star, later corroborated by the concrete photographic evidence of the word SHERIFF on the star. There was no evidence, published or unpublished, in any form whatsoever, for it being a concentration camp star. Speculation on a blog, or indeed anywhere, is not evidence. Also, "no original research" is a red herring here, because it does not apply to every single piece of info on Wikipedia. It is quite normal for an image description to say where the photo was taken, and what is in the photo, without any need for published corroboration of that. Take a look at User:Helpful Dave/Images uploaded. All of the image description info is just my personal knowledge. Only a vandal would go about deleting that info. Why do we have to apply different standards only when this is in the interests of those who wish to smear progressives as being racist? The answer is bad faith on the part of certain editors. I would like to encourage all concerned to always act in good faith. :) — Helpful Dave 12:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
SV's statement above is entirely beside the point, and frankly rather condescending (I know WP policy, reasably well). I never attacked her personally, and I added the Green Football link to the article on the Davos protests myself. I have rather changed her "interesting discussion" to the more informative "discussion of the perceived anti-semintic subtext of the Coffrini image". Sorry for cluttering your Talk page with this, Mel, but she doesn't seem too keen on having my messages on hers. dab(ᛏ) 12:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The only reason I changed it from world to international was because I flt that the term "international" had more of a emphasis on politics and the division of nations rather than on groups of people and cultures.
Well, I see it has been deleted. Actually, it was correct, though extremely stubby. Jayjg (talk) 16:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's probably better to undelete rather than re-create, so the edit history is maintained. They're a notable group for several reasons; they have created their own town in rural New York (called New Square), and they have been involved in allegations of some sort of voting scandal. However, I wouldn't be a good person to write this article; User:SpaceFalcon2001 and/or User:ChanochGruenman would be better candidates. Jayjg (talk) 17:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Inevitably, I suppose, our opinionated anon has started deleting my addition to the Pantheism article. I wonder if you'd like to look at it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. Don't see anything POV about it. I guess he objects to the idea that "cosmotheism" is not an ancient creed, ancient being better, I guess, than coined a few hundred years ago. If he has any evidence that these couple of sentences from Prof Assman are not true, he should give it on the Talk page. --BM 17:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hullo there, just a quick comment regarding the Tim Cresswell article. I had no intention of being rude or patronising, I am just of the opinion that in the field in which he researches, Cresswell is an influencial figure, and in an encyclopaedia where television shows and characters are listed with upmost respect, an academic with a large research history should be represented with an article.
That said, I am not a human geographer, I am a Religious Studies student and have only come accross the work of Cresswell through my partner, a geographer, and his books! Maybe I am not the best person to judge. I shall attempt to, or get my partner to fill out the article in the coming weeks though, so as to highlight his importance a little more.
Again, apologies. I am a nice person really! Twrist 22:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hello sir,
I am a long time user of this site and I am aware of the fact that you take pride in editing and keeping this site clean from vandalism. Having said this however I would like to formally file a complaint about clout. I am not the same person that has made the page, as I hope you can tell by my grammar, which i think is better than his, haha.
The person creating the page on clout is trying to inform inquisitive people of what the religion of clout is, which I believe is what an encyclopaedia is for.
If I am misinformed please send a message back to me; my user name is BentGalaxy.
Thank you for your time -
BentGalaxy
A concerned Cloutist
Thanks for the assistance. Also can you help me out in... wait you already did. I dont know how to classify this but I think this would be sufficcent for the random act of kindness barnstar. Congratulations.
The Barnstar of Diligence
The Barnstar of Diligence may be awarded in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service. Everyday you post stuff to newbies, you hunt vandals down, you improve spelling and extras on mulltiple articles. Hence:
The Minor Barnstar
Minor edits are often-overlooked, but essential, contributions to the Wikipedia. The Minor Barnstar is awarded for making minor edits of the utmost quality. For the number of as you call: "futher tidying & Wiki-links". Hence:
The Working Man's Barnstar
The Working Man's Barnstar may be awarded to those who work tirelessly and endlessly on the more laborious or repetitive of Wikipedia tasks. Your average wiki day is over 4 hours.
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar may be awarded to especially tireless Wikipedians that contribute an especially large body of work without sacrificing quality. Goes without saying actualy. All of the above leads to this.
09:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
