User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/Archive 17

GNAA on VfD - notice removed

Given that there is no consensus or policy to the effect, I removed the no-VfD list on the GNAA page. Please either show me the relevant policy or don't re-add that. I personally don't intend to VfD the page, but due process demands that, unless there is a policy otherwise, we don't exempt pages from the law. It is not your place to step beyond that. --Improv 19:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your judgement that due process can be disruption. Until there is a policy that says it is kosher, it is inappropriate to remove VfDs. I insist that if you want to interpret WP:POINT that way, you conduct a poll and get consensus to do so. I pledge to otherwise undo all removals of VfD for that article. If I were feeling particularly inclined to intrepret WP:POINT so broadly, I could perhaps say that you're violating it by removing noms. --Improv 23:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the content of due process is that anyone or anything is open to investigation and examination at any time, regardless of how many times it's been looked at before. Sometimes this has good results (I'm imagining how many times one might pull in Al Capone in but fail to prove criminal activity), and sometimes bad. I am concerned when I see anything that looks like immunity from investigation/prosecution handed out under any circumstances. I think that that is inherently anti-due-process, that it's an abuse of authority, and that it's something that must be challenged. The policy you reference was, as you note, deleted at some point in the past. If there's a current policy, I will abide by it (but perhaps challenge it and attempt to get it overturned for the sake of good jurisprudence), but I don't see one, and that leads me to see your reverting VfD noms as being against policy. Why don't we take this to the polls and actually have the policy discussion? I have no beef with you personally, I just don't think your actions on this matter are correct. --Improv 16:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamofascism

Thanks for your message. My action wasn't based on the AfD (though the objectors misunderstood that vote, so I tried to clarify it), but on the debate on the article's Talk page and, more importantly, the fact that the recreation of an article had started something of an edit war, and I was approached about it. The only way that I could think of to get people to talk about the issues was to protect the page, and the change to the redirect was because of what I saw as the earlier consensus for that. Unfortunately there are some long-term trolls involved, and instead of talking about the issues they're frothing about me (so we know what their priorities are). I explained what they should do if they wanted the protection lifted, but I don't think that any of them started the process (having too much fun, I suppose). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I take it this has all settled down now?Rich Farmbrough 13:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I rather doubt that. If we had an article entitled, say, Proof of Jew plot to control the global media, its existence could be expected to generate fairly intense opposition anytime and every time it was noticed by fair-minded people. BrandonYusufToropov 16:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your question at W:AN/I. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel, responding or not is not an issue. You did your job being an admin! You'd never expect a 168%! ^{Wiki me up}

For the record, I have no idea what that means. I specifically asked why Mel called someone intellectually dishonest, which is not an admin only related question. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot fathom....

... why on earth you put this back. There was in fact consensus to leave it as it was. But I'll limit myself here to saying that a) I didn't realize it looked like you were quoting me, and b) I'd appreciate some specific guidance from you on when, exactly, I can hold another AFD. BrandonYusufToropov 11:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, look

Suppose you were Jewish. (Maybe you are, I don't know.) And suppose some flaky editor had a year-plus obsession about creating/maintaining an article along the lines of Incontrovertible reality of Jew-based conspiracy to promote the myth of the Holocaust.

Now suppose there was a single word that you found just that offensive, but that somehow still got across the same idea to everyone who read it, namely that there was incontrovertible proof that Jews promoted a conspiracy to get the world to believe there had been a Holocaust, when in fact (as you and I know full well) there was not such a conspiracy.

Let's call that imaginary word "splange." Okay? "Splange" means, for our purposes, Incontrovertible reality of Jew-based conspiracy to promote the myth of the Holocaust.

Now suppose that the article Splange went through an AFD, and the results were not clear-cut. People who were big fans of the idea of a Splange article took the outcome as a vindication for their side, and people who thought Splange had no business being in an encyclopedia felt just as passionately that the outcome of the vote resulted in the article not showing up when you searched for the term.

There are going to be moral consequences to reinstating such an article. It's offensive and unencyclopedic, and there comes a point where a responsible person simply has to take a stand against hate speech.

That really is how #$%^&*(* bad this idea of yours was, Ta.

Just sitting there and saying, "Gee, why don't you work on the Splange article and try to improve the quality?" kind of misses the point. And saying that verges on complicity with the hatemongers, which I frankly thought was beneath you. I'd really appreciate a response to this, Ta. BrandonYusufToropov 12:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon, that's not fair to Ta bu. He acted in accordance with the deletion and protection policies, which he's supposed to do as an admin. He hasn't argued at all on the talk page about the article itself, and in fact has said elsewhere that he thinks it's stupid.

Also, your "splange" analogy isn't quite fair either. If splange as a term could only be found on dodgy websites, you'd be right to insist there be no WP article on it. But if it enters the mainstream, and is being used by journalists on the right and on the left, and then even gets used in a speech by the President, as Islamofascism has, it becomes almost impossible to argue there should be no WP article on it. What we've tried to do, therefore, is to make sure it's encyclopedic, and that has involved moving it to Islamofascism (term) to make sure the article's about the word, and not whether the word refers to anything, and also to make sure (so far) that any new content is sourced; and any old content that isn't sourced within a few days will be deleted. If you were to take part in that process, you might find the end result won't be too objectionable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, which is it?

The article was reinstated because there was consensus to do so?
Or the article was reinstated because Bush used the term? If it's the latter, Bush is also on record as saying that Swedish disarmament has been a hallmark of it s political history for some centuries (he meant Switzerland) and that American disavowal of nuclear weapons was and is official policy. Okay for me to start those articles?BrandonYusufToropov 13:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the article was reinstated. I do know that the consensus from the last AfD was keep. Votes on AfD are either keep or delete. There is no such thing as a vote to redirect, because it's the title that is being voted on, not the contents. If it were the contents, that would mean that AfD overrides the normal editing process, and nothing on WP overrides that in the long term. So the title having been kept, it was up to the editors on the page at any given time to decide what to do with it. President Bush's having used it clearly added to the sense that the term was notable and that may have been what caused people to want to reinstate the contents. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both.

AfD never stated that there was consensus to redirect. The talk page was still under discussion
Silly argument: we can add that info in an article. However, the term is notable because Bush used it, along with many others. Funnily enough, another battle I'm fighting is that List of Presidential gaffes got speedied... the irony does not escape me. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify. Can I start the two articles I mentioned, being sure to stipulate in the article text that Bush was widely perceived to have mis-spoken in both instances? Will you back me up on those two new additions to WP? If not, why not? BrandonYusufToropov 14:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you are indeed surprised that Judeofascism is a redirect ...

... please turn it into an article for me so I can start working on it. Consistency is key. BrandonYusufToropov 13:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you'll make sure there are mainstream sources for its use, Brandon, or else it'll be WP:POINT. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was an article already. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'd be happier ...

... if you nominated both articles for deletion, which I certainly urge you to do. But if this is the way you want it, that's okay too. BrandonYusufToropov 13:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're mystified as to why I object to you legitimizing this term by choosing to reinterpret what is clearly emerging as a "Florida 2000" vote outcome in favor of the hatemongers who lost the vote? Really? BrandonYusufToropov 14:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "tactful silence" routine really isn't working for me

Re:

President Bush is on record as saying that Swedish disarmament has been a hallmark of that nation's political history for some centuries (he meant Switzerland)...

... and that American disavowal of nuclear weapons was and is official policy.

You're an admin, so I want your guidance on whether or not I'm playing by the rules here.

Question one: Since Bush is on record with this, is it okay for me to start those articles? (Assuming, of course, that I make sure to stipulate in the article text that Bush was widely perceived to have mis-spoken in both instances?)

Question two: Will you back me up on those two new additions to WP? If not, why not? BrandonYusufToropov 15:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find this to be, frankly, quite an amazingly rude and unreasonable section title. I'm currently at work, flat out. When I have a chance, I'll respond. I don't get paid for this, you know. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of dictators

Hey there, I would be grateful for your assistance in countering the systematic vandalism of a admin on the List of Dictators page. An administrator is blanking the page every few hours, without any AfD or anything. Yours,

jucifer 23:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it

And while we're waiting, may I invite you to read WP:NOT, particularely the section about whether WP is a propaganda machine. You may also be interested in checking out Bigotry, Hate speech, and Systemic bias.

I am not saying that you advocate any of the hateful undertakings at Islamofascism. I am saying that it is worse because you do not advocate those undertakings.

Please do answer my questions. BrandonYusufToropov 11:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously unresolved

... is the issues of whether you'll support me explicitly in the creation of the two articles I mentioned. Which is, if you'll recall, what I asked you about. BrandonYusufToropov 01:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please listen

Here is my best shot at answering your questions.

I don't have any problem with people being able to track down a good, solid, neutral discussion of this term.

I fail to see why that means it merits an article of its own.

As Chip Berlet has pointed out, there are hundreds of instances in other encyclopedias where subreferences point people to sections within articles.

One good reason to point people to sections within larger articles is the stark factual inaccuracy of the heading the article would have to employ. There is no Islamist anywhere who promotes the actual political doctrine of fascism.

That means "fascist" in this case is serving the function of an insult quite consciously chosen for its ability to polarize and distract domestic political constituences.

Which brings me to another good reason to point people to sections within larger articles -- namely a certain moral responsibility among admins with functioning brains to prevent WP from becoming the #$%^&*() Newspeak dictionary, which is clearly the intent here.

And that brings me to yet another good reason to point people to sections within larger articles. There is precedent for doing so in the case of patently offensive or highly controversial terms, both of which categories are clearly relevant here.

Where is the stand-alone article for Blow job?

Where is the stand-alone article for Zionazi?

Where is the stand-alone article for Fifth column?

Do you seriously maintain that these terms are not notable, or that they are incapable of being adequately discussed within the articles to which they are redirected?

So what's the difference between those terms and Islamofascism? I'll tell you what the difference is. The necons want this term front and center. So they go knocking on doors until they find someone who actually thinks he's acting responsibly by bending over for them.

Bad call, Ta bu. Seriously bad call. And the fact that someone like you made it is considerably more disturbing than the fact that they went knocking on the doors in the first place. BrandonYusufToropov 16:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon, you know the reason there are no stand-alone articles for those topics is simply because we cannot find encyclopedic sources for them; if we could, and there was enough information on the topics, they would deserve their own articles. A number of better examples of articles on "patently offensive or highly controversial terms" exist, of which you are well aware - Nigger being the primary one. TBSDY simply undid a page protection that was against policy, please stop harrassing him about this. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator abuse ? on Moldovan language

Is there a possibility to check the Administrator's Mikkalai good faith? He makes serious very POV edits and he blocks people by his own will 24.131.138.215.

Brandon

Hi Ta bu, good enough, I'll leave you to deal with it. I just don't like to see you being laid into for doing your job. I can understand Brandon's feelings about the article. It's always difficult when something objectionable becomes notable enough for its own page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I may boil this down

(Examples -- Blowjob, Zionazi -- proving you are being utterly inconsistent with this)

"Gee, fascinating point, but, um, neocons really need to stand unchallenged in this particular case, but anyway thanks for raising this, and, er, what if you go fix those articles yourself?"

It is not my point (as though you didn't know) that Blowjob and Zionazi -- and Kike and Gun nut and Judeofascism -- "need work." My point is rather that a systemic bias exists preventing those harsh, controversial terms from meriting separate articles (and the perceived legitimacy such an article implies), and b) that this systemic bias has, at the same time, no problem whatsoever with harsh, controversial terms like Islamofascism or Feminazi or Raghead. (If I may quote from that article: "Sikhs (who wear turbans) are particularly offended at being lumped together with Islamic 'ragheads.' -- Can you picture a sentence like that in Kike? Oh wait, never mind that article doesn't exist, so it's a moot @#$%^&* point.)

Could you please do me a favor and read the above paragraph again, carefully?

What I have perhaps grown slightly weary of hearing:

"Gee, if you want to try pushing Zionazi, you can, but I don't think you'll get it up the hill..." THIS IS PRECISELY MY POINT, TA BU.

What I have perhaps grown equally weary of hearing:

"Inconsistent? Who's being inconsistent? Tell you what, why don't you go spend some time on Blowjob? And, while you're at it, uh, stop bothering me?" That's what the neocons say when they want me to go away, Ta bu, and frankly I imagine that's your objective too. BrandonYusufToropov 12:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've had enough. No more talking to Brandon. Next abusive message gets deleted from my talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Baseline revision

Hello, I have just noticed you started Wikipedia:Baseline revision. I have just created something similar: Wikipedia:Requests for publication. -- Zondor 17:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noahide Laws in Category: Jewish Christian topics

There is a dispute over whether Noahide Laws should be included in this category, anyone with an opinion is asked to express it here: Talk:Noahide_Laws#Jewish_Christian_topics

Thank you so much, but...

Thank you very much for your comments: they're really encouraging. In any other circumstances, I'd hop right on that, however, I recently decided to stop editing here. You can see my user page for my reasons. I've been checking my talk page every now and again so that I could clear up any loose ends, which is why I found your note. Again, thank you very much; I was enjoying working on those titles (and who knows? maybe I will again some day), and I enjoyed doing what small work I could with you. If I come back and start writing again I'll get cooking on them, I promise.

Take care, lad, I've enjoyed your company. You're a fine writer and a fine Wikipedian. Good luck go with you. Oh, and before I go, I thought you'd enjoy this. I hope you find that as funny as I do *grin*. Man, I was once a young, ignorant, whippersnapper, wasn't I? Still am, I guess.

Yours, Blackcap (talk) 06:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'm really glad that my work encouraged you. Here's to hoping that you keep that up despite my leaving. I'm just sorry that I can't do more. It's time to go... and may all go with you. Blackcap (talk) 07:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your words: there's nothing better than having your work appreciated. Rest assured that if I ever have a change of heart I'll leave a wee note here :). But for now I'm off and running. Take care, friend, Blackcap (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My heart is truly sad that such a fine contributor is leaving us :( I leave Blackcap my best wishes, and know that he'll do OK. Hopefully, we can count him as a true Friend of Wikipedia! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

[1] BrandonYusufToropov 14:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement on Moldovan langauge

Hi Ta_bu_shi_da_yu!

I just want to inform you that we are almost done with a final agreement on Moldovan language. Its just a matter of days until it could be unblocked again. There is already a majority of users that agrees with the content of the first paragraph. Others will remain not solved yet. Bonaparte talk

Halibutt's RfA

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibu tt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's always a comforting thought that there are people out there who are willing to change their mind from time to time, instead of defending their original views at all cost (which is the most natural reaction for the majority of humans). Cheers! Halibu tt 06:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nixon

Did you follow Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Richard Nixon? In short, the date seems to be right, but to verify the "flipping the bird" incident, you would have to visit your nearest library. Lupo 08:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Céline Dion

Thank you very much for the note that you left on my talk page. It was greatly appreciated. After reading the article, I realise that it could use some improvement. Im gonna work on it sometime this week or the next (not right now--assignments). Thanks, T. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 21:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Ritter

Hi Ta bu, howz things? I've been spending some time on the Scott Ritter page which looks very messay and poorly written and maybe some POV issues happenning there. Maybe if you have some time and inclination you might like to have a look and see what you think. Cheers. --Wm 05:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revert war at The Indian Institute of Planning and Management

As I'm member advocate, User:Iipmstudent9 contacted me about the revert war going on at The Indian Institute of Planning and Management. My concern is almost all of the last 50 edits have been reverts. I don't really want to ask for it to be protected, but I was hoping that you could comment on the talk page. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 05:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MDAC rollback...

... sorry! I did this accidently :( hope I did not cause you any offense... Ta bu shi da yu 12:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I wouldn't even have noticed if you hadn't said something. And I could hardly complain as I did the same thing to someone else yesterday! -- JLaTondre 23:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ref update

Thank you for protecting {{ref}}. Can you apply the following change (also in Template:X7)? You can delete the code from this page to avoid side effects. It adds interpage support and linking within old pages. Thanks. (SEWilco 07:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

<span class="reference"><sup id="ref_{{{1}}}" class="plainlinksneverexpand">[{{qif
  |test={{{page|}}}
  |then={{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{{ns|{{NAMESPACE}}}}}:{{{page|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}
  |else={{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}|oldid={{REVISIONID}}}}#endnote_{{{1}}}}}]</sup></span>

Hold on. User_talk:Guanaco#ref_label indicates some sort of problem, along with some sort of new incantation. (SEWilco 04:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

If I could buy you a cup of coffee I would do so by way of apology

But this will have to do. I get stressed from dealing with bigots, and I do know you're not one. Please accept my apologies. BrandonYusufToropov 12:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA for TheParanoidOne

Hello Ta bu shi da yu. Thanks for the vote of confidence in my RFA. I have now officially received the badge, so I shall try my best to be a good administrator. Thanks again. --TheParanoidOne 22:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

I think updating Signpost articles is a nono. Speak to Ral315 about it. Once a story is published we like to avoid changing the articles so that everyone ends up reading the same thing. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with Wikipedia, are you familiar with Signpost policy and the rationale behind it? Talk to Ral. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to clarify things. Updating articles is wrong. However, adding a sentence or two to clarify things, as well as minor edits, are fine. We really should have an official policy on this; sorry for the confusion. Ral315 (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Seigenthaler Sr.

This page has a modified edit history.

Kim Bruning 07:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FARC

Have you seen that Windows XP is on FARC? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stable versions

And I've reverted again. I really don't see why you have this great rush to begin nominating articles when we absolutely no idea what we're nominating them for. We have absolutely no consensus as to what kind of stable version we're looking for or indeed, what the point of that page is. By trying to rush things at this stage, you just risk turning the page into some useless clone of WP:FAC because you were too impatient to wait while people worked out a solution to the issues. Ambi 11:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are people to be playing around with, and how is this helped by having a nomination there when we have nothing to nominate it for? There is a talk page containing a great variety of ideas. Perhaps you might try participating there instead of forcing us to proceed without knowing what we're doing. Ambi 12:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's absolutely no agreement on how to proceed, and proceeding without any clue as to what we're actually proceeding towards is a recipe for creating an unnecessary mess. Why can't we just sit down and work out an amicable solution on talk without having to force the issue? Ambi 12:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, being bold only applies until someone objects. Secondly, if you had actually read the talk page, you would see that I'm certainly not opposed to such a process; indeed, I've supported it. Thirdly, what is the point of "trialling" something when we have no idea what we're actually trialling? Ambi 12:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ambi, try thinking of this as bottom-up tinkering, as opposed to top-down brainstorming. Both approaches can yield useful results. — Matt Crypto 12:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. Cheers Matt! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom-up tinkering certainly has its uses, but not in this case. We're still discussing how we're going to proceed here, and there's a very wide variety of opinions. Allowing a trial to persist in its current form; with basically nothing determined, and accepting an article to no place in particular based on no particular criteria, will kill the idea stone dead. Sometimes it really is best to talk the idea out first. Ambi 12:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Should this be now on Wikipedia talk:Stable versions? I'm afraid don't see how playing around with one approach to a "Stable Version" process would "kill the idea stone dead". If someone's willing to invest the effort in fleshing out an idea, the worst they can do is waste their time. Let's not discourage creativity here. — Matt Crypto 12:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Please, let's keep the rest of the comments off user talk pages and onto the talk page of the project. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Weasel

Someone nominated Template:Weasel for TfD, thought you might want to know since you were the creator. (Thought you might also want to know that a newbie had changed it significantly, I've reverted most of those changes). —Locke Cole 20:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It lives!

I'm back—somewhat, anyway. I'm hopin to be in limited capacity, and I'll be totally gone for a few months in the spring... but I decided I might as well keep at a few edits when the mood strikes me. I may just kick around the PATRIOT Act titles... we'll see. Anyway, here's hoping you're doing well! Take care, mate: it'll be good to hear from ya. Blackcap (talk) 07:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, mate! No, I don't, really (sorry!)... if I get a chance I'll take a look at it, but sadly I don't know of anything off-hand. I think you're definitely on the right track, looking at EPIC and EFF stuff. I'm sure you already have, but it'd be a good idea to take a gander at the ACLU's site on the PATRIOT Act: http://www.aclu.org/patriot. NPR also has a lot on the issue, based on what I've heard every now and then. Sorry I don't have more—anyway, I hope that helps. Take care, Blackcap (talk) 07:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO!

I tell ya, nothing puts a smile on my face faster than seeing you online around here. Welcome back! Missed you!!! - Lucky 6.9 07:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I feel better chatting with an old online pal. Quite a brouhaha around here as of late. Now, instead of anonymous vandals, we now get them complete with user names! This explains why I've tried to avoid new pages patrol tonight and focus on two new articles instead. What a world. :) - Lucky 6.9 07:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhhhh, yes. Here's what I've noticed: Vanity article authors, given the benefit of the doubt once their info is transfered to their blank user page, don't return for further editing. More rude and obscene user names are being generated. The most bizarre twist of all is the famous echoed title in the article space. You know the kind. An article named "John Smith" with nothing more than "John Smith" in the aticle space. I've permanently blocked at least four of these idiotic things with user names, yet! - Lucky 6.9 07:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heya

Hope things are going well with you, Newhoggy :-) Did you ever get a change to do that dump of all the good info you got into the Bankstown page? I can still help out, if you'd like. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you. I haven't gotten around to the Bankstown stuff yet, but I'll do it soon. By the way, I have just uploaded a picture of Gowings. -- Newhoggy | Talk 11:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Pnau the age Oct 17 2003.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pnau the age Oct 17 2003.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by going to "Your contributions" from your user page and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Pak21 13:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; the image has now been tagged as a candidate for speedy deletion, so it should be gone very soon. Cheers --Pak21 13:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One more note on the Signpost

One other thing...if you do make minor edits, please don't change the byline. The problem is that there are so many people who make minor changes that the bylines would be too long. Thanks :) Ral315 (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the difference is that of editing vs. writing. Any edit that might be considered a "minor" edit (re-wording things, misspellings, etc.) in the mainspace isn't byline-worthy; if you add something significant, it's writing the article. It's not anything official; just something to watch out for. Ral315 (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article

After some editing Portugal from the Restoration to the 1755 Earthquake (now moved to History of Portugal (1578-1777) as considerably improved. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 22:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifiddler is being merged to Andrew Orlowski

I'm contacting you because your help is needed and because you recently cast a vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikifiddler. DannyWilde (talk · contribs), who has been actively campaigning in that AfD for the keeping of the article, has in the meantime been repeatedly copying the entire contents of Wikifiddler verbatim into Andrew Orlowski -- each and every time marking it falsely as a minor edit, and with either no edit summary or with a false one such as "rv blanking vandalism". Obviously this is unacceptable; AfD has no meaning if any editor can unilaterally save any text from deletion by simply merging it into a different article. Please assist me in resisting this attempt to circumvent AfD. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Wikipedia

Well, it was listed under Old so I figured it was to be closed. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 02:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Always nice to know that my contributions are noticed. - Taxwoman 11:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the News

The vital info, I think, is that there are anti-Arab race riots. The details (that it started on a beach, that it may be related to a previous incident with a Lebanese gang) belong in the article. The length of a blurb is not proportial to the issue's importance. Just look at the big clumsy block of text this makes on the Main Page to see how out of place this is. And moreover, something that tries to give all the details up-front (which is impossible anyway) I don't think really does encourage the click-through.--Pharos 07:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I was hasty in my words and I have written a response on the page. Apologies to you and your girlfriend. - G^t 07:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

You may want to check out User talk:Lucky 6.9 adn User talk:DragonflySixtyseven. Bloody idiots (not the wikipedians mind you). --Martyman-(talk) 01:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know you were a Marxist liberal! Hell, I'm a rock-ribbed Reagan conservative! Does this mean we have to fight now? Seriously, I think the ugliness of all this is behind us. I can only hope and pray some good comes out of all this. Thanks for watching my back. I can't tell you how much I appreciate all you do for this site and for me...even though you're a Marxist liberal. :) Your pal, Lucky 6.9 04:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap! The nutters have libeled you by saying you consort with pedos. Not fun. I am so sorry to see you dragged through to dirt like that. You are a very, very important person around here. The only consolation I can give, is that the article is so over the top that it will likely get ignored by the mainstream press. It also looks like the organization behind it is a figment of somebody’s sick imagination. Again, I’m so sorry you have been caught up in this. --mav 19:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, you are brave!

Did you really go to Cronulla and get pictures amongst the violence? I could never go there, not least because by gf's family is Lebanese (she is 100% Aussie). - Ta bu shi da yu 07:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nup. What gave you that idea? I haven't been anywhere near the place for ages. I actually find the word "Aussie" mildly offensive as I find it vaguely jingoistic, especially when used in that horrible chant. Yes I am an Australian citizen but I reject "Aussie". It seems sad to me that you have sort of apologised for your gf having Lebanese background by feeling the need to defend her as "100% Aussie". Your girlfriend can be as Lebanese as she would like to be, would that make her any less a person if she wasn't "100% Aussie". Certainly not. Actually, perhaps I am only 50% Australian as I am entitled to Irish citizenship and dual citizenship is recognized by Australian law. Does that make me some sort of second class citizen? Wm 08:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I amnot ashamed of my gf, nor am I ashamed of her heritage. Just thought I'd clear that up. And I define my race as Australian, and I don't for one moment consider myself a jingoistic moron. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No of course not. I am very sorry to have offended you. Please forgive me. Still I did find that expression very strange and my reaction is quite genuine. All this business has been very upsetting, I am sure you agree. But still you didn't explain why you thought I had been to Cronulla? --Wm 19:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nill Illigitimi Carborundum

Google it if you don't know the meaning... PeeJ went way out of line. ALKIVAR™ 19:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: PJ

No problem. I've got your back :-) Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 02:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're famous

Hi Ta Bu, thought you might just like to know that there are some concerned citizens out there in Internet Land who are concerned about your activities (scroll down). :) - Randwicked 13:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Working wack hours... :( There was a meetup? - Randwicked 13:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. So what are wikipedians like in real life, anyway? - Randwicked 13:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Windows XP

Too many lists? I've killed another one with fire, and now the article only has two lists, both of which I consider, well, unkillable lists. They make sense as lists and not prose; how do you convert the list in the product activation subsection into prose? Johnleemk | Talk 15:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

block

sorry, i just woke up. it looks like the IP has already been unblocked. Sorry about that long block, I'm a new admin and I guess I got overzealous. tell me if there's any other problems.--Alhutch 17:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help for Korean user?

Hey Ta bu: hope you're doing well.

Do you speak Korean? There's a Korean user named WonYong and he's having some trouble with Kate's Tool. I couldn't figure out what's wrong, and his English is shaky, so I passed your name onto him thinking that maybe you'd have some idea. Hope that's O.K. Take care, Blackcap (talk) ^{(vandalfighters, take a look)} 00:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and don't worry: I'm planning on digging back into the PATRIOT Act as soon as I have a minute. :) Blackcap (talk) ^{(vandalfighters, take a look)} 00:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kate counter problem

see my talk, please... 카테 카운터를 쓰는데요, 전 영어위키와 한글위키 아이디가 같구요. 그런데, 영어위키에 대한 카운터는 제대로 작동하더군요. 실시간으로 바로바로 카운터가 작동되던데, 한글위키에는 아직도 제 아이디가 카운트 안됩니다. 다른 운영자 아이디 넣어도 안나와요. 그래서, 한글위키 운영자에게 물어보니까, 플로리다에서 한국으로 서버를 이전했는데, 그 부분을 카테가 반영하지 않아서 에러가 나는게 아니겠냐고 하더군요. 카테 오류좀 고쳐주었으면 합니다. WonYong 03:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GNAA and AfD

TBSDY, for reasons of due process, I think it's inappropriate for us to ever decide that an article is immune from AfD. There may be some judgement involved with regards to the frequency it may be proposed, but without an official policy allowing articles to be exempt, I think it is inappropriate to remove it when people add it. --Improv 15:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In a court of law, do you think they would allow a person to be placed on trial for the exact same thing eight times? Don't talk to me about due process. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you take it up with Jimbo. It's absurd that the dratted article has been listed 7 times. Just imagine I did this for childlove movement? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you take it up with Jimbo. You could do this for any article, provided some judgement were involved in the reasons for deletion, and it would still be due process. As of right now, we have no policy or guideline that suggests that articles ever become exempt from VfD. If you want to make a policy change, go for it. Until then, I don't think there is a mandate to do things like this. --Improv 15:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I already have taken this up with Jimbo. Go check his talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Improv here. Unilaterally closing an AfD, with no policy support, is a very bad idea. Please revert your action. DES ^(talk) 18:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Depending on how seriously one wants to take this, you could argue there is a reasonable margin of support for not repeating it again. Dragons flight 18:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that WP:POINT and WP:IARs apply in this case. I will not revert. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree, as User:DESiegel and User:Improv have explained above, policy does not allow you to grant "AFD immunity" to an article. PJM 20:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that we can and do grant AFD immunity to some articles. For example, if you tried to AFD a major topic, like physics, or any featured articles, I'm sure it would be "speedy kept" and the AFD closed. The notion that we can't or don't ever do this is silly, the only real question is whether it should have been done in a case like this where 7 previous AFDs have already failed to form a delete consensus. Dragons flight 20:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where anyone said "we don't" or "we can't". It's just a matter of following policy. I agree with your implication that common sense very much applies when dealing with major topics, such as physics. As for the real question, sure, a controversial article like the one in question should be subject to AFD as many times as it's nominated, and the process should be allowed run its course each time. PJM 22:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two points here: 1. common sense dictates that if an article has been submitted 7 times, with a consderable number of votes to keep, then relisting for the 8th time is really pushing things somewhat; and 2. the process has run its course: 7 times. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this is one of the most sensible applications of WP:IAR I have come across. As for taking it up with Jimbo - why? We can manage - and police - ourselves. Storm in a teacup. Guettarda 01:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I told Jimbo because I felt this was a pretty controversial thing for me to do (I don't back down from my action, I'm just acknowledging that it's controversial). I count it as common courtesy, and I respect the man. I also noted this on WP:AN/I and Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]