User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/Archive 19

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article David Tweed, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 17:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't let him bait you!

Enough said! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Help with a problem user?

Hi, Ta? I wonder if you could help me out with a problem user. This user has been lying about me all over Wikipedia and deliberately trying to incite trouble. In fact, many of the lies he's told about me are right here on this page:

"* I got Brandt to change the bit about "outing" as requested by the guy who wrote it."

I never requested for Brandt to change his description of the "outing" incident, even though his interpretation was incorrect. I especially never requested Zordrac (talk · contribs) to request it of Brandt; I would have been a fool had I done so, as Zordrac's gloating about it here makes clear that he had malicious purpose in mind: "By the way, I sent an e-mail to Daniel yesterday advising him that you were not trying to imply that he was gay - you were trying to imply that he was a hypocrite, by using weasel words in an underhanded way to discredit him, something which I advised him is defamatory of nature." And yet he persists with the lie that I requested him to present this inaccurate, inflammatory "explanation" to Brandt!

"The guy who wrote "Outing" has enough evidence to go to ArbCom over, what with his 15RRs in a 24 hour period (if I am correct in interpreting it that if he continues to include content that has been deemed by consensus to be inappropriate - and was reverted 15 times in 24 hours)"

Again, I am "the guy", but you would never know it from Zordrac's completely fantasized description. 15RRs in a 24 hour period? The only way in which this bizarre allegation could even approach the same zip code as truth is if Zordrac thinks the rule applies to any revert anywhere on Wikipedia, which is of course light-years from what the rule actually covers, which is excessive reverts to the same page. Even the claim that in some 24-hour period I had fifteen reverts for other than combatting vandalism is not likely to be any more true than his bold-faced lie that I "requested" him to represent me to Brandt.

Even before this, Zordrac was lying about me out in the open. "And if you think you're writing this to "Out" me then that's just silly." [1] Yes, it is. Since I have never made any attempt to discover any personal information about Zordrac, much less release it against his will, the idea that I could be in any way, shape or form trying to "out" him is utterly preposterous. The fact that he made this irresponsible and unfounded accusation, an attack on my integrity, in a public venue, is what makes it no laughing matter.

The rest of his lies are just repetitions of the same unbelievable falsehoods. "Then he called me a liar for doing precisely what he asked me to do - asking Brandt to change his outing bit about him, and Brandt even changed it for him." Well, once again, I never have and definitely never will ask Zordrac to do anything on my behalf. Read his gloating on my talk page about how he told Brandt what an underhanded attempt I was making to discredit him and ask yourself why on Earth would I ask Zordrac to represent me in anything? So if Zordrac doesn't want to be called a liar, he should try not being a liar. "I thought about doing an RfC/ArbCom thing on him, but you know ..." Yes, I can believe that he thought better of bringing an RfC against me, but not because he wanted to be kinder and gentler or because he thought "this obviously abusive user ... will likely get banned soon anyway" -- it's because once it came down to cold hard evidence the cold hard evidence would show him to be so full of shit his back teeth are floating.

Anyways, I am highly unamused by the fact that he continues these grotesque and unbelievable lies about me. Anyone who takes the time to check the facts for themselves will quickly see what a lying scum he is, but I can't expect everyone to take the time to check all his accusations. So, please tell me, how do you advise that I proceed? Is an RfC against him the way to go? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

G'day Chris, I just wanted wish a Merry Christmas and a happy and safe new year. Enjoy this time off and I hope to see you back here soon. Regards -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Biography living

Template:Infobox Biography living is deprecated... the main Template:Infobox Biography now works even for the living (just leave death_date) blank. Care to push the delete button? -- Netoholic @ 07:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, add Template:Infobox Biography living nosize and Template:Infobox Biography nosize to the hitlist. -- Netoholic @ 07:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a little CSS trickery. The empty row is hidden from view. -- Netoholic @ 07:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks much! -- Netoholic @ 07:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Australian PD material

Got your message. I'm sure a bot could do the uploading work. I'm really busy lately, so you might post on Wikipedia:Bot requests. -- Netoholic @ 07:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

My internet tag

The j is lower case. Andjam 09:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

That's ok. Andjam 09:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas. All the best for the New Year (and, hopefully, some sleep). Guettarda 15:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!

Good to see that you're back, alive, and well! Blackcap (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Packer

ITN can only include stories from Current events, and CE has a very rigidly-enforced rule, stating "DO NOT LIST THE ORDINARY DEATHS OF PROMINENT PERSONS HERE." Packer is no doubt a prominent person, but the rule is there precisely to avoid back-and-forths about degrees of prominence and whether or not he should somehow merit an exception to the rule. If he was assasinated, sure, but old people die. Even fabulously rich and well-known ones. It happens. The Tom 03:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for rolling back before submitting this, BTW. I wasn't counting on you being on such a knife-edge there timewise. :) The Tom 03:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, apologies. (and, if you have a look at my user page, you'll realize it has to heartfelt, as I'm a huge exploding whale fan.) I would've gone with the article talk page, but figured you'd check your talk page sooner (and, as it was, it wasn't soon enough :) ) It's a crummyish rule, agreed, and on a strict-impact-versus-impact basis I can totally agree Packer should be there over, say, the legal announcements in Libya. But unless we're talking about a Pope croaking and a full article on the whole funeral to-do, the rules say no, and I'm personally in favour of some sort of cut-and-dried standard rather than case-by-casing ad nauseum. The Tom 03:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Re the message on my talk page: the rule is clearcut. No obits. The only example is a major world figure whose death would make news worldwide in its own right, and even then it is usually the manner of their death (if assassination), a unique feature (youngest ever, oldest ever, etc) or their funeral that would make ITN. Packer, whose identity I am well aware of and have been for decades, does not meet any qualifying criteria. He was not a major world figure, was not someone whose identity would be widely known (I only know him because one of my jobs is in the media industry), had no distinguishing aspects to his death (he wasn't assassinated, he wasn't a unique example of something, etc). All he was was a media mogul. A powerful one, yes, but not one with a worldwide reach or identity. As a result he was certainly not suitable for inclusion on ITN. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act titles

I've been looking at the eighth title, which is theoretically my current project, and I'm wondering: do we need or even want to include all of the sections of each title? The reason I ask is because many of the sections aren't controversial or noted by anyone; they're just legalese changes to text and the ones which are relevant can be all talked about in one section (e.g. "Changes in definition to laws"). A few examples are pretty much everything as yet in USA PATRIOT Act, Title VIII. That section was plenty controversial, and there's plenty to say about it, but I don't reckon that I can do it best by incuding each bit in the title. I mean, we don't do that with other law pages, do we?

I regret that I won't be around to do more on this for a while, but hopefully I can put in a dent before I leave. I'm going to go head over to WP:LAW and see what they have on this kind of stuff—I'll be back with the details. Blackcap (talk) 05:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. I'm just thinking that maybe I could combine them in a way that doesn't seem so impenetrable. I'll have to sleep on it; if nothing comes, than I'll just keep on truckin' with what I was doing :). Anyway, WP:LAW doesn't seem to have any guidelines on the topic, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (legal) essentially says to use your common sense. So, there doesn't seem to be any real structure on how we handle this stuff. Blackcap (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, what I was thinking was to merge all of the commonly themed sections (namely, the ones which change definitions of terorism) and put them under a header such as "Sections X, Y, and Z: Changing terrorism definitions" and then give more information about them inside of that. Then, for the more controversial ones, have them each have their own section, and first explain them (referenced) and then have a commentary sub-section. The main idea was to merge together the small stuff that no one cared about, and then focus on the topics that drew the most attention. Blackcap (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Man, this is like phone tag... gotta go check that talk page! Blackcap (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, agreed. I've always been something of a descriptivist, anyways. Blackcap (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That makes sense. I didn't mean eliminate the boring stuff, I just meant that maybe all of the legalese wasn't needed. Maybe I just have a low tolerance for USC texts ;). Ah, I'll just have to work on it and see if I can make it more accessible. Looking at what you've done on II, the way you've split the commentary up makes sense: it's easy to get to, and not so messy. Good idea; when I get to that stage I'll do that the same way, I think. Blackcap (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Aw, shucks, you're making me blush... :) but thank you very much! I'm glad to be back around. Sadly, though, I'll be gone for a couple of months in... oh my, only about six days now. But I'll be back! Promise! Blackcap (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, man, I just took a look at title III: that sucker is HUGE! If you're still working on it when I return I'll come by and give you a hand with it. It's more fun to work woth someone than alone... Blackcap (talk) 07:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Win2kserver logo.jpg

Out of interest, how would we convert this into an SVG? It's a logo. I don't think Microsoft would look to favourably on us converting it to another format somehow... - Ta bu shi da yu 03:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, its not always easy to get or make a SVG. Some companies make EPS files available for using their logo in print. See Image:EEA agency logo.svg for an example. EPS can be converted to SVG with tools like pstoedit. For others, the logo has been redrawn in a tool like CorelDraw or Inkscape. See for example Image:007.png (hrm, looks deleted now) and Image:007.svg. As for formats, I'd say that converting between formats would fall under fair use (EPS->SVG or JPEG->PNG). Redrawing could also. The redrawn logo might be an original work of authorship, or it might be a derived work (for example by tracing the outline of a feature), but fair use of the trademark should be straightforward.

As for this particular image, having a clean PNG would be all I would hope for. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars

Thanks! Of course, it wasn't all me who improved it. Another prime contributor to reshaping, reorganizing, condensing, and cleaning up the article was User:Justin Bacon. I'm hoping to add the references soon; it will be the final step in the FA process. And, it does give a very brief history of the original trilogy, however, most of it has been merged into List of changes in Star Wars re-releases. The Wookieepedian 01:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Cynna Neele

I've tried to fix all the issues you highlighted, and I've found references for each tag, and thanks to your suggestion, I've just put it on peer review (Wikipedia:Peer review/Cynna Neele/archive1). Anything else you might be able to suggest? Ambi 02:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Greetings, and thanks!

Hello! Thanks for your review and praise of my burgeoning article. How did you find it, by the way? Amidst other things, I'm still editing the ST article and will not publicise it until I can source it properly and get another set of eyes: much of it is derived from one of the online sources noted. I will do so, and will also add a concise version to the Star Trek article (which was the original intent!) in the next few days. And, given my editing style, I'll be copying it when it's complete: there's no reason for my many minor edits to pollute the article's history. Please let me know if you have any more feedback or questions. E Pluribus Anthony 03:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, W. actually suggested the article and he perused it for me a few days ago.

I'm not afraid of mistakes per se, but it's still a work in progress. Once it's properly sourced, placed, and 'publicised,' I'm sure it'll garner a history all its own. :) Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 03:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh: by the way, care to vote on this issue? Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 03:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

input request

Please review this and provide input, or forward the input request to people in a position to be better "in the know". Thanks, Tomer^talk 13:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh. Thanks. I'll give that a spin. I just tackled you and Grutness bcz you guys are the closest to the sitch that I know of... :-p Tomer^talk 13:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

PatRIOT act...

Good lord. You're still working on that???!!! I'll give it a look.  :-) Tomer^talk 13:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW...Sensenbrenner is from which state? I live in which state?  :-) Tomer^talk 13:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW...wait... Sen. Feingold is from which state? I live in which state?  :-) Tomer^talk 13:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

For right now (you realize I've been up all night...it's going on 8:00 AM here...), watch the spellings ComE vs. AmE. I see several instances of "criticise" vs. "criticize". I imagine there are other ComE spellings...I think WP:MOS would dictate that the articles should use AmE. <soon to go to dreamland,> Tomer^talk 14:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• gak* stop! I can feel you looking at me! Tomer^talk 14:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Moving articles on afd

When you move an article that's on afd, could you please create a redirect from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewTitle to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OldTitle instead of moving the afd discussion? My bot can account for redirected afd discussions automatically, but it can't detect moved ones, and there isn't really an easy way to make it do so. —Cryptic (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

NSA page

Hey, good work with the NSA stuff. Could you take a look at what I wrote at Talk:NSA_surveillance_without_warrants_controversy#Rename.3F and respond? Thanks, Dave (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Some questions about U.S. law

A few questions:

1. If I wanted to see a bill, and see all the ammendments that led up to it becoming law, where would I look? If I then wanted to see any ammendments that were done on the law AFTER this, where would I look this up?
2. Where do I find legilsation before the 100th U.S. Congress? thomas.loc.gov doesn't carry public law before then!
3. Where can I find the record of the debates in Congress over legislation?

If I could get info on this, it'll make it SO much easier to document the USA PATRIOT Act! - Ta bu shi da yu 15:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions to help you get what you desire:

1. Sign up with your cable TV provider, or Direct TV (via satelite) or whatever, to get all of the different C-Span offerings. This way you can watch the process live.
2. Link to the web pages of the US Legislative bodies, and their committees, which have markup of the bills, hearings, etc. on them.
   1. Spoiler Warning ... this can turn into a full time job of an army of people ... one person cannot possibly follow the whole process.

User:AlMac|^(talk) 16:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Go to Thomas and search for H.R. 3162 in the 107th Congress. Click on "Bill Summary & Status File." You'll see that H.R. 3162 was the combination of three bills, H.R. 2975 (the PATRIOT Act), S. 1510 (the USA Act) and part of H.R. 3004 (the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act). Click on each, then click on "Text of Legislation." You'll be able to access the text of the bill at different stages of the legislative process.
• For a more-detailed look at the bills' changes in committee, click on "Major Congressional Actions" for H.R. 2975 and then "H. Rept. 107-236." Then click on "Purpose and Summary" and read on. You can do the same thing to get the committee report for H.R. 3004.
• I don't think there's an easy way to find changes made to the law since 2001. The law changed many parts of the US Code, so you can't just go to a point in the code and look at the footnotes. One thing you could do is to do a search on Thomas for other legislation that has passed Congress that contains the words "Patriot Act" or "Public Law 107-56" (or "P.L. 107-56"). You could also note down the code sections (such as "28 USC 509") listed in the GPO's online copy of PL 107-56 and then look up those sections individually on Cornell's US Code page to see if they have changed, using the "Notes" and "Updates" functions on that service.
• Thomas does carry laws passed in the 100th Congress. Click on "Public Laws," then click on "View 100-93."
• To see the debates for a bill, go back to the bill's Summary and Status page in Thomas, click on "All Congressional Actions," then click wherever you see a link after the letters "CR." That will take you to the Congressional Record page for that discussion. -- Mwalcoff 00:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy to help

Thanks. I'm happy to help with any US government questions -- Mwalcoff 22:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Neto

There was a clear discussion and a clear decision in a vote by consensus as to what form that box would take. Neto already made changes in incorporate code adaptions. What is being returned to his his rewrite. The new version is contrary to the decision taken. There are ways to work the code to keep the agreed design. Abandoning the agreed design is not an option. It basically tells all those who discussed the box and agreed the format "fuck you." That runs contrary to community spirit. Please respect a decision made by users. There are plenty of templates I hate but I accept the decision on their structure. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem, mate. We all make mistakes. We need to find a way to incorporate the new codes while staying as close as possible to formats people agreed to. Unfortunately Netoholic's approach of unilaterally changing things without explanation had annoyed a lot of people who then get very defensive. Unfortunately his approach has made the difficult task of correcting codes more difficult by seriously pissing off people. We need to work together to solve the problems. Take care. Slán FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. It is controversial. But that was one of the features of the design that won people in the middle ground over. People thought it looked rather stylish and less dull than ordinary boxes. Personally I am fed up seeing ordinary boxes everywhere and find the different look of the pope boxes refreshing. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Tooth development

Thankyou very much on your compliment! I appreciate it a lot. -Dozenist talk 05:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

?

Detected what?! 68.39.174.238 01:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I consolidated assuming the negation preceded the DO. For the record, another "anon" (150.101.188.97) fixed it to what I had intended. 68.39.174.238 01:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

HeHe, you're not the 1st to say that (As you probably noticed) ;D 68.39.174.238 01:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Stable versions

There have certainly been suggestions of displaying a stable versions as the default, but I gather that the implementation so far does not do this. Not displaying the stable version by default lightens my worries - stable versions should only impact the amount of editing and flow of editors to the extent that people read them at the expense of the real version of the article. Amaurea 16:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

possible request for comment?

I am inclined to let it slide because I think I am dealing with a nut-case. But do you consider this (the last sentence) an anti-Semitic threat? [2] Slrubenstein | Talk 19:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You may not feel invested enough, but consider please this[3] Slrubenstein | Talk 23:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

the Bible

I appreciate your comments concerning my beliefs. We may simply disagree. The fact is this: I consider myself a pious and eligious person. I believe (pesonally) that my way of looking at the Bible is the only Godly and religious way to read the Bible. I believe that any other way of reading the Bible is blasphemous. This is of course my own personal opinion. That you may disagree with me in no way diminishes my respect for you. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

PS. You wrote "if the historical bits are inaccurate then there is a good chance that it wasn't inspired at all." My view is the direct opposite. If all of Moby Dick were a true story accurately protrayed, then it would have zero artistic value and Melville would be nothing more than a reporter. What goes for Moby Dick is in my mind goes a Zillion times for the Bible. The more literal it is the less sacred it is. It is only when it goes beyond the bounds of "literal" accuracy that it is a holy book. This is why The Book of the Wars of the Lod are not holy, but the Torah is. No one needs inspiration to write down what "really" happens. The touch of God is not in what happens, it is in how we experience what happens. Just my opinion - again, no offense intended. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You have never offended me, and have no need to apologize,though I appreciate the sentiment. I believe Wikipedia ought to be an egalitarian environment where people's contributions should be evaluated based on the quality of the research, and not the qualifications of the researcher. But if you are asking, I owe you an answer: I have a PhD. In anthropoogy. I am a cultural anthropologist which one could number among the "historical" or "human" sciences. As part of my training I had to have a fair (but by no means technical) grasp of the theory of human evulution, the fossil evidence for human evolution, and primate behavior; I also have fair knowledge of the "scientif knowledge" (e.g. what is the difference is between a pradigm, theory, hypothesis, and fact; some basic knowledge about sampling and the difference between precision and accuracy and reliability). My own interests have lead me to read a good deal about the Bible and Biblical history. Really, I do not think that one's background should be an issue here, except in the most technical of cases. The only advantage I think I have over many other contributors is that I have a fair idea of what kind of scholarly literature is out there, and how to tell the difference between good scholarship and bad scholarship .... Slrubenstein | Talk 16:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

On the Jews and Their Lies

Please help. [[4]] Doright 18:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Name?

Just wondering, what does your username mean? I'm assuming it's in Hanyu pinyin, and so have been puzzling over the last two words. --Breathstealer 04:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that's what I thought at first, though it did sound kinda weird. Thanks! --Breathstealer 04:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

An Invitation

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

A.J.A. 22:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I always almost always sign my comments. Looks like I missed one my apologies. Thank you -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 22:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Basically the point Ortcutt was trying to make was worded in such a way that when i read it I got a totally different meaning from it. I felt it was inaccurate and conflicting at the time. After talking to him on the talk pages and re-reading the FISA act specifically §1802 (a) (1) (2) I finally figured out what he was trying to say and so clarified the sentance so others won't have the same problem as I did. I also issued an apology to him about the matter. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 10:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, I like what you have done and if your goal is to do this to the FISA Article it will be the better for it. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 02:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Raymond Chen.jpg

See this paragraph of their terms of use:

In addition to the warranty and representation set forth above, by Posting a Submission that contain images, photographs, pictures or that are otherwise graphical in whole or in part ("Images"), you warrant and represent that (a) you are the copyright owner of such Images, or that the copyright owner of such Images has granted you permission to use such Images or any content and/or images contained in such Images consistent with the manner and purpose of your use and as otherwise permitted by these Terms of Use and the Services, (b) you have the rights necessary to grant the licenses and sublicenses described in these Terms of Use, and (c) that each person depicted in such Images, if any, has provided consent to the use of the Images as set forth in these Terms of Use, including, by way of example, and not as a limitation, the distribution, public display and reproduction of such Images. By Posting Images, you are granting (a) to all members of your private community (for each such Images available to members of such private community), and/or (b) to the general public (for each such Images available anywhere on the Services, other than a private community), permission to use your Images in connection with the use, as permitted by these Terms of Use, of any of the Services, (including, by way of example, and not as a limitation, making prints and gift items which include such Images), and including, without limitation, a non-exclusive, world-wide, royalty-free license to: copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, translate and reformat your Images without having your name attached to such Images, and the right to sublicense such rights to any supplier of the Services.

Jimbo

What, he deleted one of my comments, didn't he? You make it sound like he does it routinely. Has he done it more often than I thought? Everyking 10:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I looked, and all the comments I remember are still there. So could you alter your vote so voters aren't given a false impression? I don't doubt that Jimbo dislikes me, but you're making it out to be more extreme than it is. He has also spoken quite well of me in the past, so it's not so simple. Everyking 10:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Article creation

OK I'm invoking that offer: User:Nlehavre needs to be created with the text:

{{Wikipedia is Communism}}

{{WoW}}

Athough the last one I'm less certain of. 68.39.174.238 09:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Somethings come up, I promise I'll look into it later, OK? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Updates

You're generally welcome to update Signpost stories if you feel there's something to add. Some new developments are substantial enough to warrant separate stories in the next issue, but probably not in this case. --Michael Snow 17:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

unusual names

FYI. -- Netoholic @ 04:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Journalist

Sorry for not replying to your messages; it couldnt be helped. I'm still unable to converse over the net. Apart from my computer system crashing (piece of crap), I have exams coming up in two weeks. These exams will have a very huge impact on my averages (and if they are below 85%, I wont be able to get into the university program I applying for). Therefore, i will be away until about February. I'll still pop in when I'm at the library at school (like now), but my activities will be limited. Please take care of Céline Dion while I' away; feel free to make any changes you want. Somehow, I trust your judgement. See you. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 18:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I found a forum in which you and someone were discussing about me and my contribution. It dates about near a year ago. I just want to say, that I don't know who the guy is and that I am not associated with him in any way. I thought that you should know that. Fad (ix) 17:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: your Help desk question

I think it's MediaWiki:Signupend. (FYI: I found it by going to the page as if I was signing up a new account, finding an slightly unusual phrase, and pasting it into Google along with the word "wikipedia".) pfctdayelise 06:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Cheers!

Cheers for the comment re:TGV. Btw, the words in your username seem to be out of chapter one of my mandarin textbook, "elementary chinese readers 1" and are some of the few words i can remember.. is that where it came from? I remember informing mates at school that they were big fish :) Willkm 01:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

RE:Which forum?

I don't remember, it could have been the mailing list. I found that a few months ago, and wanted to make it clear that I wasn't involved in this, but you had left Wikipedia during that period. It was someone who was attacking you and questioning your participation and was talking about my contributions. I don't remember more about this. Fad (ix) 17:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Re. your user page

Hi Chris! Geez, a Wiki legend like you asking "me" for help with his user page? Wow, I'm so flattered! ;-) Anyway, I'll be delighted to make something new for you, but you have so little material being currently displayed that there's not much for me to work on. Just let me know if you want me to include something else, or if you simply want me to go on the stuff you have right now, and I'll get to work immediately. Kisses! - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} 21:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

<ref>

I guess an example is worth a few paragraphs describing the new system. Let me know if there's anything about you're confused by. By the way, you can actually name the footnotes and refer to them more than once, as has been done in articles like Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia or Ghafar Baba. Johnleemk | Talk 11:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

HoF

Thanks. Those were collected over the course of only a few days. By the time I've been here a year I suspect I'll have enough to publish a book. :-) --◀Puck^talk▶ 13:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Draft for your user page

Okay, Ta bu - I've been designing several drafts from scratch with the material you currently have at your user page, and I think it's ready to go... or at least, pretty close. You know, I hate it when I have to fit the Signpost into tables... it intrinsecally has a left and bottom padding, which is great if you want plain text to wrap around it, but it definetely sucks when squeezing it into tables :( So, after going through the whole process for several times (and after exercizing my cursing abilities every time I thought I had found the solution at FireFox, only to find out that it looked awful at IE and vice versa), I think I've finally made it and found a new design for you - check it out. As far as I can tell, it looks well in FireFox and fairly decent in IE. If you want me to retouch it a little, just let me know - otherwise, feel free to copy it into your page. Kisses! – Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 00:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft

Hi - I'm here right now so lets discuss on the talk page there :). WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 07:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Darth Father

I now have the father's name, but I'm taking your comments as a very reasonable call to sympathy despite the lawsuit, and won't be posting it. - Nunh-huh 04:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

re: Pedophile activism

Hi, I'm messaging you because you're listed as having recently edited this article. What is going on with this article? I saw that the name changed again, its been protected, is tagged NPOV disputed, etc. Is it coming into shape, or what? Per some discussion starting with the article's AfD a couple weeks back, I created a project structure to address this article, here: User:Herostratus/Pedophilia I'm not now up to speed on article, so I'm asking current editors -- Do you think this would still be useful, or what? Thx Herostratus 14:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Rollback button

You really shouldn't use your rollback button in a content dispute. -- SCZenz 21:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't do it. I started commenting hours and hours ago. My edit was not vandalism, and you should not be treating it that way. You are of course able to protect pages if you want to, but I can't see the basis anywhere for mandating everyone to do it. Now behave yourself. -Splash^talk 21:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Umm, that isn't what I said at all, and nor is it what either version I suggested said. On the other hand, it's pretty obvious to any admin about to block/protect that polite warnings should have been given. But why not keep this at WP:BP, to avoid fragmented discussions? -Splash^talk 22:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Because the document in question is the blocking policy which sets out when blocks may be used. It is not the protection policy or the fair-use policy. -Splash^talk 22:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No, but the use of fair use imgs in userspace can get you blocked, and there is no reason to insist on protection before blockage, particularly since someone will quickly game the provision. You really need to calm down, you know. -Splash^talk 22:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If you were editing coolly, I wouldn't be suggesting you edit more coolly. But when your thumping around using rollback, italics, bold italics, and five exclamation marks... Actaully, protection is traditionally a last resort, although clearly things are somewhat different in this kind case. By all means give the kind of suggestion you now have in WP:BP, but by no means make it mandatory as in the earlier drafts. Slim Virgin's edits are something you can discuss with Slim Virgin. -Splash^talk 23:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

However, I would think that a mention of it in the userpages stuff is probably sensible. Slim Virgin does tend to take a slightly idiosyncratic approach to fair use and userspace. -Splash^talk 23:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Timecop block

TBSDY, could you justify your indefinite block of Timecop? I'm not a major fan, having been harassed by GNAA folk myself, but I don't see any explanation for the reasoning behind a block, let alone an indefinite one. At the very least, you should explain your reasoning somewhere. --Improv 16:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, I didn't see this. You might've wanted to have left a note on his talk page pointing the curious at it. --Improv 16:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

on USA Patriot Act

TBSDY, you asked me to look over the Title II article for the USA Patriot Act on IRC. I made a few grammar tweaks at the top, but the entire article needs a lot of fine-toothed-comb work on getting the grammar proper and understandable. Here's a problem sentence which I can't parse: Section 218 changed the reason changed FISA to make "[the] significant purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information" (change in italics). I spotted a few more on a cursory glance through the article. If I get time, I'll dig through it and clean it all up, but IMO until a few people give it some pretty intense surveying, and it's clear and grammatical for all of them, it won't be ready for featured/frontpage status. It's an interesting article though, and when ready will be something we can be proud of.. --Improv 01:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

NSA warrantless surveillance controversy

Thanks for complimenting my Hayden edit there. Any other suggestions? Metarhyme 05:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a hairy monster, now NPOV contested due to my reluctance to revert a sock OR edit. I requested intervention on that page you Administrators have. I should drop User:Mmmbeer a note. Hello, anybody home? Metarhyme 18:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The partisanship has moved into the article's lead. When User:Federal Street put left wing POV above everything, I tagged the article disputed NPOV and unverified, since I wasn't sure about reverting. Mmmbeer responded to my cry for help - he reverted. Now unverified right wing POV has been placed in the lead by an anonymous editor. It's slow moving, so I could settle down and deal with it, but I'm nervous and inexperienced. I'd rather let an old hand deal with it. I think the left wing is furious that the right wing has decided to deny that any law was broken by the NSA warrantless surveillance. Metarhyme 01:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out by doing step two. The Gestapo anon is close to a block from elsewhere. If that happens, he'll have a hard time discussing the change to his contribution at NSA warrantless. I should invite a subsequent anon not to do minor delete vandalism. Uh, templates... Metarhyme 02:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The guy's got an agenda and a variety of IP's - blocking won't work. I reverted his vandalism, inappropriately tagged the article Controversial3 instead of NPOV, corrected that and tagged the talk page Controvesial3, and responded to his let's be bold blast under your step 2 talk page entry. Metarhyme 19:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I will not commit to fixing the footnotes. I think they all ought to be in-line. Your step 2 has grown. What's it like in New Zealand, by the way? The Queen is sovreign - do they have civil liberties? Sometimes Susan Larson fixes up the footnotes. Just keeping the numbers matched is tough. I invite you to make a suggestion at footnotes. Metarhyme 04:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

NZ sounds like Oregon. I guess the ref technique could be applied a little at a time. Heat will hit the page when hearings start, but that's not right away. Rumsfeld has no public role yet in the "flap Potential" damage control push. Metarhyme 06:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm exhausted by troll 69.164.66.203 and inclined to let him depradate to his heart's content. Metarhyme 05:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

69.164.66.203 became User:Sea level. The paranoid psychosis of the intelligence community may be proper in the article. I looked into some mediation cabal ongoing resolution attempts after making mention of Russ Tice in the NYT section. At iteration 10, the wording of a cabal mediator's paragraph about who gets to survive Armageddon is unresolved amongst quarrelling Jehovah's Witnesses. No spat about Armageddon's immanence - that's sure. Metarhyme 07:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I got some Q&D help with the footnotes. Want to contribute an opinion to Talk:NSA warrantless surveillance controversy#Length? Metarhyme 04:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I bitched about Sea level/Rktect/Federal Street at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#3 February 2006. The socks set up Legality of warrantless surveillance but won't stay there. Metarhyme 07:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess you can't trust me. I said I wouldn't fix the footnotes but I went and did it. Federal Street to the rescue - Rktect's sock wiped out the bottom of the article. Rumsfeld is involved, by the way, in the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy. Russ Tice, the would be whistleblower, has to clear his offer to testify to a Congressional committee with Rumsfeld through the Inspector Generals of NSA & DIA. I think what Sea level made up has some basis in fact, and no one seems to be interested in the supposed "encyclopdic quality" issue of the article recently, so I will just leave it. Eventually someone will revert the vandalism. Or not. Metarhyme 21:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes he did. I couldn't resist dumping the section he'd deleted in Fed's Legality of warrantless surveillance. I'm sorry I'm not being a good Wikipedian. Maybe when he's on meds he's Federal Street, when not he's Sea level or anon. Seems like Gresham's law applies - the guy really wants to obliterate any but the correct point of view. Maybe I'm doing a "my way or the highway" but the guy strains my sanity. I tried this and that, now I'm trying leaving it alone. Metarhyme 07:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I admit that the last time you tried to guide development of the article results were catastrophic, but now that all the interesting talk is archived maybe you would be willing to try again. I pooped out a novel theory which is certainly either completely incorrect or not entirely correct in the Article length section of talk. I have a couple of real theories about what is happening and why, but they are useless for getting the article down to a reasonable size I think, as well as being inadmissable due to basis: original research. No one has responded to the confection. Would you? Metarhyme 09:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Timecop

I'm writing to you about a user that you have banned, Timecop. Timecop's user page has a list of several 'backers', most, if not all of which are banned as suspected 'sock puppets', etc. One exception is User:Viscid. Viscid claims to be herpetic, has made virtually no contributions other than to support Timecop, and all in all looks suspiciously like another 'sock puppet'. Could this ID be looked into, please? Arno 05:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You could not have referred this onto David by yourself? I've done it, but it is all rather silly. Arno 03:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Randomly paging admin...

I noticed this on my watchlist from User:Archangel White Tiger on the Eastern Front article: [5]. The line that concerned me was (in ref to the Holocaust): "P.S. For homosexuals killing, mentioned above - I would have killed them all if had a chance! Really, killing homosexuals is not a sin, according to Bible."

No, I'm not pro-censorship, but I felt that this is blockable and I am not myself an admin. I only contact you because I noticed a similar block (noted in above post) on Jimbo's talk. Cheers, Marskell 12:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

From IRC

Natterer_ ping
Natterer_ Overview> "Section 218 changed the reason changed FISA" should be "Section 218 changed 
          FISA"
Natterer_ Overview>  Rewrite end of the second paragraph to be less redundant: "and the export of 
          agricultural commodities, medicine, or medical devices. The latter is now pursuant to
          one-year licenses issued and reviewed by the United States Government, and excludes export 
          to the Governments of Syria and North Korea."
Natterer_ Commentary>  Seciont 203>  Too many "she maintains", "she believes".  These can be taken 
          out in such a way as to keep it clear that this is her argument and opinion.
Natterer_ Commentary> 209 et al.> Kerr "also" agreed?  No need for "also", given that this is the 
          only other commentator discussed.
Natterer_ Commentary> 214 and 215> World Trade Center bombing, not [[World Trade Center 
          bombings]]
Natterer_ Commentary> The section on Section 218 should be reduced, summary style.
Natterer_ Far too much of the detailed back-and-forth for an overview article.
Natterer_ That's it for the moment.

Cheers

Thanks for your comments! I've updated the article to 2/3 of your requests, please see the FAC and consider changing your object to support! :) Staxringold 15:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello? Can I get a response either way? Not trying to rush anything, but I see you've been on and editing, and the Cheers FAC is pretty far along. Staxringold 04:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You are gay or antisemmitian?

Archangel White Tiger

Meow! Greetingshhh!

Uh, there are two ways, why you do erased my comment about WW2, that holocaust was brutally slaying of Jews and not gays/Gypsys/Slavs/anyone...

1 - If you are anti-semitian, than shave your head bald and go to the skinhead meetings!

2 - If you doubt words of the Bible, that homosexuality is a deadly sin, make a pentagram tatoo on your forehead go to the satanistic masses with your gay pals!

3 - First and last warning, you fucking gay - I won't appreciate if any more nazi shwain would write in my page! I don't wish to talk to you anymore!

Beware of the Dark Side!

Archangel White Tiger 18:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

User blocked indefinitely. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review

Thank you, Ta bu. It means a lot to have a message like that from a Wikipedian I personally respect. Although I think there is a doubt that Wikipedia Review was begun by Alex Linder, there's no doubt that Igor Alexander is User:Amalekite, a man so virulent he has had his views censored on Stormfront. Personally, I don't care which Nazi began it, I want nothing to do with them. I don't mind either whether I'm visualised as a man or a woman. Grace Note 22:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Encouragement

tbsdy,

As you know I'm normally a huge fan, but I got a very sad email from a very sad person upset about a very ugly Vfd page, and when I read it, well, there was much to be sad about, but I was most saddened by something that you wrote, because I know you are capable of so much more...

You wrote "Not to condone the "dwarf" comment, but out of interest, how does <ip omitted for privacy> think they are going to sue for libel when it was <name omitted for privacy> who was attacked? Unless they are <name omitted>, he/she will not be able to sue for libel as the attack was not directed at their person! And I think the court would laugh them out of court on this one. It's just not serious enough - it's just name calling. I've been called worse, and I'm almost certain <name omitted> has been called worse at her University. Also, who are they going to sue? People are pretty much anonymous on this board. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:08, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

The problem with this is that there is simply no reason for it. This is not a "board" and responding to upset people who are upset for a good reason (being called names) by mocking them and their legal threats is just poor poor customer service.--Jimbo Wales 02:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Note to all who read this: I have emailed Jimbo about this issue. Expect a response (and apology!) soon. Given that this was almost a year and a half ago, I honestly can't remember writing this. Trying to track down the edit now. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Have tracked down the edit. Not doing anything till I get a response from Jimbo. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have read all the edits that you have made regarding this issue, and find your behaviour rather disturbing and disgraceful, and a shame to all good members of this community. Your bullying tactics may have caused the person in question extreme distress. You should respect that some (non-notable) people don't want to have information about themselves made available on the internet, and even if they are officially violating a Wiki principle there's no need to be so rude, heavy-handed and downright nasty with them. MorganStanMan 04:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Really? What edits might they be? I have already apologised to the anon (I am privy to info you are NOT privy to). I rather think that you don't know what you are talking about. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Where have you apologised to the anon? It was me contacted Jimbo about the offending material and you haven't apologised to me. Or the person the articles were about. Looking back, you were one of the main reasons why so much stress and hurt was caused to the person who did not want information about them online. Comments you made can be easily construed as threatening, menacing, and clearly an intentional attempt to upset someone and be detrimental to their quality of life. For example, she wanted her name taken off this site, you wrote comments like "You blanked Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Ruzwana_Bashir. I'm listing you on the vandalism page", "P.S. It goes without saying: please don't blank pages again. I'm watching", "It's useless trying to hide your edits. I have this page on my watchlist.", "perhaps I have the legal right to revert you back again". As Jimbo told you, an administrator mocking someone is extremely unacceptable. You have no idea how much tears and anguish you caused, as the poor girl was repeatedly asked in job interviews about your comments. If you are the evangelical Christian you claim you are then it's a shame that God will be sending you to hell. PPEist 19:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

PPPEist, this is over the top. Please reconsider your words. --Improv 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sydney Meetup - The Return Of...

G'day Ta bu, will you be going to the wiki meetup on Sunday? -- Ianblair23 (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser status

David, can you please do a CheckUser on User:MorganStanMan and User:PPEist? Their talk pages look similar, and I have been getting what I believe to be harrassing messages from both accounts. Please also note that PPEist has threatened to get another IP address and carry on blanking pages if they get blocked. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Aww... isnt that sweat of them :) More blokcing fun for you, ne? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Dave seems to be "hybernating" I am also waiting for sockpuppet chekcs, is he really ok? :o --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

GNAA trouble brewing?

User:W.Marsh has been trying to delete the entire References section of the GNAA article, on the grounds that they aren't "valid sources". There's an ongoing discussion on the talk page that is nowhere near conclusion or consensus, and personally I think he's throwing the baby out with the bath water. I'm assuming good faith for now, but things could get ugly. So I'm letting you know, since you have worked with this article in the past. --TexasDex 08:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Cystic Fibrosis vandalism

I've noticed that like 15 out of the last 50 edits on Cystic Fibrosis are reverting anon vandalism. No idea why this article is getting so much vandal attention, but it's getting to be a waste of time. Is it anywhere near the point where we would consider semiprotection? I'd rather avoid that if possible. Any other possible solutions? --TexasDex 08:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act

Any ideas on whether I should call USA PATRIOT Act, Title III this name, or by it's other name, International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001? I'd prefer the Title III name, but am open to contrary views. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Fatmouse.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Fatmouse.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Images

It would be a shame if your images had to go. I, for one, thought the mouse and cat shots very funny. The cat clearly has a lot of personality! Is he yours? -- it's a wonderful photo, how on earth did you get him to pose?!

ITN

No offence taken at all. I'll be surprised if you're the only one questioning the inclusion. There are always disputes whenever a sporting event is listed. I think the super bowl makes enough headlines the world over to merit inclusion, and I'm even more positive to include a major sporting event when the article on it is a good one. And Super Bowl XL is quite good. I expect many people both wanting to read it, and enjoy reading it and being impressed by it and by wikipedia. So I like showcasing it for that reason as well. But we should be careful, of course, and not overdo it. The winter olympics are coming up with hundreds of events, but I don't see any of them meriting inclusion, except the opening and closing ceremonies, maybe. And, for the record, I'm not an American, I've never even seen a game of American football in my life. But that made me just more suitable for being the one to list it, since I'm practically immune to any accusations of bias and American narrowmindness that might follow ;-). Shanes 07:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

More trouble

Given that you responded promptly to my last post about attack comments I was hoping you might take a look at this summary: [6]. What is offensive should be obvious. This is a troublesome user who I have placed notice in regards to on WP:AN: [7]. Thanks a bunch if you can look into this. Marskell 10:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

On WP:AN I suggested a mentor. Pink's pattern is as follows: arrive at a page, denigrate it and suggest no one knows what they're doing, and then hijack it through dozens of small edits and a half-dozen talk comments at once, which puts others off because it requires too much energy to resist. He cut Terri Schiavo in half without a bit of consensus and the last thing I want to do is waste hours on that bloody page. When he gets annoyed he tends to ramble in an attackish fashion that often doesn't make sense and talking one-to-one doesn't accomplish much. In sum, I don't believe he is a troll as such, but he doesn't work well collaboratively and could maybe use a mentor or guide here. Marskell 13:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask Musical Linguist...

Ahh... she problaby does not have time. OK. Here is the joke: Mark Fuhrman, with his LAPD police badge and his gun, with all of those yummmy bullets in it, would do traffic stops on black people. If you think that was a DWB kind of thing, well, other might feel that way too... Anyway the joke is this: He did not love those niggers that stopped, he loved the effect that using, under color of authority (pun intended), the WORD nigger has on them emotionally. See, if he could just get an emotional repsonse from those niggers, he might be able to create an excuse in order to insert some of those yummy bullets into them. Mostly, those niggers just sat and and took it. Some non-admin Wikipedians find themselves in the same situation as those guys. Ironically, Mark probably makes a lot more money with his books now than he ever did as a policeman. Provided that people merely purchase and read his books, but do not actually take them seriously, maybe we are all better off that way. He's got more money. He does not use the n-word anymore. He does not carry a gun and use the n-word under color of authority. Surely, that is best of all possible worlds, is it not? -- Pinktulip 11:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Open discussion and following process

I support open discussion of issues and following the usual processes for deletion of templates. However I am coming to the position that no administrator should reverse the action of any other administrator. We need to talk it out. That may leave things in limbo for a bit while the issue is sorted out but unless that creates serious problems It is better than wheelwarring even of the 1RR type. Fred Bauder 14:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean that Ta bu shi da yu should be added to the RfAr based on subsequent actions? NoSeptember ^talk 14:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, feel free. If I get desysopped, no biggie. I'm secure enough in myself to know I did nothing wrong: if the ArbCom wishes to desysop me, go right ahead. I'll still edit the site as normal, less work and crap to deal with. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you should be added. But based on the events of 6 Feb, a single reversal of another admin's action is enough to be called to account now. NoSeptember ^talk 14:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh? And when an admin abuses their admin powers - what then? Do we take it to ArbCom to decide on for a month - by which time an editors block may be up? I don't know how many times I've seen editors unfairly blocked and another admin has had to come along to unblock that editor. Under the new ArbCom policy, that would be impossible. Say bye bye accountability! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we agree. My point is that there needs to be clarity about this. I saw your comment on Proposed decision, and we seem to be making the same point. NoSeptember ^talk 14:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

protecting stable articles

perhaps stable versions is ready to start protecting articles. -- Zondor 15:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Response to your query on ID article

I was tremendously impressed by the re-organisation, yes, but not only that - at the same time either coincidentally or as a by-product the most niggly bits of illogic or bias have been cleared up as well. It is just such a relief to read it now! Thank you! PS I'm not sure how one dialogues across personal discussion pages, but anyway I am not really in much now - just happened to pop in in an idle moment. So please email me if you want to say more unless you are prepared to wait a year! ant 22:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Egyptian newspaper printing cartoons

Hi, you were asking for a source on the Egyptian paper. The paper in question is El Fagr. This is the blog entry that broke the story. The newspaper homepage seems to confirm the story. I haven't really seen any mainstream media covering this yet. Some links: [8], [9], [10]. Hope that helps. Cheers! Jacoplane 12:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

From the BBC

I presume you received a similar form letter. - FrancisTyers 12:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Francis Tyers

Thank you for your e-mail about the Scott Mills show on BBC Radio 1 on 19 January. I'm sorry to learn that you objected to the way Scott and Mark Chapman edited the online encyclopedia 'Wikipedia' during the programme. Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in responding.

I contacted the producer, Emlyn Dodd, who responded as follows to your concerns:

The part of the show you refer to was when Scott Mills and Mark Chapman noticed that various ridiculous things had been written on Edith Bowman's Wikipedia entry. This was not something started by Scott Mills and Mark Chapman. As a joke they decided to add some more information to their own entries. I can assure you though that no account was ever created by Scott or Mark or anybody on the Scott Mills show team.

It was meant as a humorous piece of radio and the only profiles they talked about were those of themselves and their close friends. I'm sorry if you thought they were condoning "vandalism", it was certainly not their intention.

Emlyn Dodd Producer, Scott Mills

I trust that Emyln's response assures you that the programme never set out to condone any such 'acts of vandalism' against Wikipedia. The BBC has stringent Editorial Guidelines and all programme-makers, be it television or radio, must adhere to these.

Nevertheless I do recognise how you felt about Scott and Mark's behaviour with regards to Wikipedia. Please be assured your complaint was brought to the attention of the producer and the executive producer, Ben Cooper. Your concerns were also added to a daily log which is made available to senior editorial staff and channel controllers.

Thank you, once again, for contacting the BBC.

Yours sincerely

Ethan Kennedy Divisional Advisor BBC Information

Chinese Wikinews

Hi. Since you voted to support, you might be interested in this userbox. Dovi 08:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review

Just to let you know, people keep adding this; http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=39305512 . I've indicated in my edit why it doesn't belong there. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Chilean coup of 1973

I'd be interested in your opinion at Talk:Chilean coup of 1973#Differentiating the deposement from the coup. - Jmabel | Talk 06:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your greeting

Sorry that I was prevented for replying until now. Londoneye 22:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist surveillance

A couple of new users proposed renaming the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy - get rid of warrantless and replace it with terrorist. I am resisting this. An informed view from half a world away would be welcome, if you can look in on Talk:NSA warrantless surveillance controversy please. Metarhyme 00:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure two of the new users are sockpuppets - they made the same mistake on the google count: 120,000 instead of 12,000,000. Not sure, but I think all of the new users are sockpuppets, and wonder what banned user they belong to. All the lying is getting to me - I need to refrain from posting for a while. Metarhyme 21:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

St. Valentine's Day

Sure thing Ta bu shi da yu, I'm no expert in Australia, but to the best of my knowledge that is the case in japan, I'll see if I can seperate the two out. Thanks for the info. -Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 16:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's day!

Happy Valentine's Day, my sweet dear Ta bu!
Phædriel

I love you, man!

Okay, the above was a joke, but it was meant to catch your attention :-) Anyway, giving you a well deserved Tireless Contributor's Barnstar for your work here on the 'Pedia.

See you, εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 02:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes! A message from the legendary TBSDY, thanks (can we shorten your name some time?) εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 02:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Huh? εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 02:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about that εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 02:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)