User talk:Anythingyouwant: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:24, 31 March 2008

WP:AE

Based on your behavior at Talk:Abortion, which I believe was disruptive, I have filed a report at WP:AE asking that you be banned from abortion and its talk page under the terms of the ArbCom sanctions against you. MastCell ^Talk 19:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed a request at WP:RfArb for the expansion of remedies from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge. Briefly, I'm asking that the sanctions allowing you to be banned from specific articles for disruptive behavior be extended to apply to all pages (talkspace, projectspace, etc) where your conduct is disruptive, rather than applying solely to articlespace. I'm notifying you as an involved party in the original ArbCom case. MastCell ^Talk 21:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at some of your contributions, Ferrylodge, it appears to me MastCell is out to ban you, not for disruptiveness, but because you do not share his POV. Your edits are consistently well-sourced, constructive, and encyclopedic; your demeanor consistently excellent; your points consistently cogent. Please do not be discouraged. NCdave (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion and Mental Health

I see MastCell is out to silence you too. For my part, thanks for participating in the discussion regarding Koop at abortion. It was very helpful information. That and other reliable information that continues to get purged at abortion and mental health truly distort these articles. In the latter article, editors have openly purged over 22 peer reviewed references to push their POV. I have added additional notes on the discussion page regarding materials that have consistently been purged from abortion and mental health. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.--Strider12 (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the message. I'll try to get back to you soon, but have much other stuff to do right at the moment. I haven't reviewed your edits, so I can't say yet who appears to be right or wrong, and I also have never edited at abortion and mental health. However, I hope to have enough free time soon to give you a more helpful response than this one.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note of encouragement. You may be interested that MastCell has developed a list of complaints against me and has opened a request for comments against me.--Strider12 (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was already aware of the request for comments, but have not yet become involved in it. Mastcell seems to be correct that you have edited in a very narrow range of topics, and have advocated that abortion has significant negative effects on mental health. And, IMHO, there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, as long as you are trying to bring neutrality to an article that reflects the opposite POV from your own.

I haven't examined most of Mastcell's assertions and diffs at your RfC, but I did notice that you made a policy suggestion: that reputable and reliable sources should not be deleted, and they should simply be allowed to accumulate as much as possible on both sides. I don't know if you still have that opinion, but it doesn't seem consistent with an encyclopedia article which by its nature should be brief; if every source on both sides were listed in a Wikipedia article, then the article would become prohibitively lengthy.

At the same time, I agree with you, from personal experiance, that IAA is a very difficult person to work with, and if we could write an article titled "POV pusher" then we would know whose photograph to seek as an illustration.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in condensing articles. But I also believe evidence should be allowed to accumulate until such point that editors AGREE that the all the pertinent material is before them and should now be condensed. Condensing an article should FOLLOW the putting forth of material, not proceed it, especially if some editors doubt the relevence of the added material. Otherwise we have editors who say I have THE SUMMARY source right here and anything that disagrees with it doesn't deserve a place. At least that it what I have witnessed. In my case, sure I could add briefer bits but they would still get cut! The reason to add longer bits, and many sources is to demonstrate that the material is truly reliable. I'm quite open to condensing later. Also, as you know, Encylopedia Britanica articles can be several thousand words. There is no "law" that says that these articles need to be brief and given the electronic nature of them virtually no financial reason to keep them brief.--Strider12 (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the best place to allow accumulation of evidence be at the talk page, rather than directly filling up the article with it? Then when everyone has listed all their sources at the talk page, there can be a decision about which ones to use in order to keep the article to a reasonable length. If the article is directly filled up with sources on one side of the issue at one rate, and is directly filled up with sources on the other side of the issue at another different rate, then the article's balance could get seriously out of whack, don't you think? By the way, I'm certainly not ruling out the possibility that some of the editors at that article have been trying to push a POV (I've witnessed plenty of that in various articles), but it's always best if people who object to that POV-pushing do so in the most effective manner, and so that's why I'm asking you questions.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't rain on your parade but.... no matter how much evidence you amass on the talkpage Mastcell,J*gay,slim*,*gordon, etc ( some times I think they are one and the same ) will bann you anyway - but really who cares a twit project run by twits ( but not dumbies ). I am still waiting for an explanation of where M*'s idea that poppers are harmless comes from, how kerosene melts steel, how Treblinka is a mjor death site when all real historians say not so ( all court cases ...yadayada...). Some of the science articlea are okay - unless the article is really an ad - but anything to do with history or "social" science is so full of bull you don't even have to be an expert to piss the wikiEmperors off ( ie they don't know enough about the subject beyond PC to argue - or they know their argument is full of it ( ie fat ladies can burst into flame and totally cremate themselves and at least one thin man - read the holocaust article) I think M* came from nowhere so fast and sounds so similar to a few other admin/editors I have run into, that I suspect they are a multiply birth tag team or the same person. Good luck - but I don't think they want anything near the truth in most/several articles. ( I found this out searching for Mastcell on the web to see if I was the only one runnig into his goofiness

Cite author order

If you're going to do the drudge work to put the "cite news" authors in last, first order, you should probably use the first= and last= template options, rather than author=last,first. At least that's what the comments at Template talk:Cite news say. Me, I've been guilty of just doing author=first last for editing convenience in the first place. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had (and still have) a lot of "author=first last" uses in the HRC article when it was FAC, and I don't remember anyone complaining. To me, the different "cite" templates present information in sufficiently different ways that book cites, web cites, and news cites already look like they clash with each other, regardless of whether name order is consistent or not. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Three_generations_of_McCains.jpg

It looks like Image:Three_generations_of_McCains.jpg is on Commons, so since it isn't free it is being deleted. Frankly, I'm a little surprised it hasn't been speedied. On the other hand, there isn't anything stopping you from downloading a copy from Commons, and then uploading it on en-Wikipedia (with a different file name) with a fair use claim. I can't guarantee that it'll survive any possible fair use review since the photo itself is used more for decoration than anything in the section that its in.... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and in case you're wondering.. I saw your comment on Wasted Time R's talk page. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Wasted Time wants to upload the pic on Wikipedia, then I have no objection, but I'm not going to do it. I didn't upload the pic to Wikimedia Commons, didn't install it into the McCain article, and don't really care much either way what happens to it. I just wanted to make Wasted Time R aware of the imminent deletion.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like it should be deleted ... it's probably from McCain's private collection or something, I don't see any evidence of it being government-owned or public domain. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working on cut down main article?

Are you working on the sandbox cut-down main article? Your talk page edit there said you wanted to. Otherwise I'll proceed with the next sections in it. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go there now. I was just trying to spruce up your new article on early life and military career (new pic, decorations at top and bottom just like the nav box, formatting).Ferrylodge (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The decorations at the top look kind of over-the-top. There's already someone in the main page comments complaining about including the decoration graphics in the end section. Ostentatious display of decorations is frowned upon in some military cultures as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll remove it.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge amendment

I have filed a new request at WP:RfArb for the Ferrylodge case sanctions to be amended or clarified to apply to Ferrylodge's editing in all namespaces, rather than solely in articlespace. This is a courtesy notification as you've been an involved party to the original decision; your statement or other input is welcome at the WP:RfArb page. MastCell ^Talk 18:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your redlinks do not take me anywhere.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for correcting the links, OrangeMarlin.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of preview button

While we encourage people to use the preview button, this might be taking it too far. Feel free to split up your edits into several stages, as it actually makes it easier to track changes for everyone else. The Evil Spartan (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Evil Spartan. This is unusual for me. Normally I edit in small increments. However, in this case, there was massive sandbox editing, as discussed here in the sandbox of Wasted Time R. This plan had been discussed at the John McCain talk page, here. I'll mention to Wasted Time R that we should try to further shorten the article by editing in smaller increments.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean the changes I made were undone? I'm not a big fan of sandboxes - I think it can be just as well done in the mainspace, and, as here, it avoids people having made useless edits. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of your changes were preserved. None of them were undone. I've suggested to Wasted Time R that further edits not be done via sandbox.[1]Ferrylodge (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could make reduction edits in small increments, but every edit comment would be the same: "Doing size reduction, this is important but in my (possibly faulty) judgment it's less important than something else." I'm not sure what that would accomplish. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just use your good judgment, and I'm sure Evil Spartan will understand. Please make the edits as easy to follow as possible, but not easier than possible. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:Talk Fetus

Regarding your question addressed to me at Talk:Fetus. If you are butting heads with another editor, perhaps you could consider Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Step 6 is especially important for further input. Requesting a 3rd opinion is helpful when there are two users in disagreement. For bigger issues, contacting a subject specific wikiproject, a noticeboard, or even filing a RfC are available to you.

Generally speaking, users are welcome to make BOLD edits. For top tier articles, or for edits that may be controversial, it always help to seek for consensus prior to editing. However, after a bold edit has been made, if it is reverted in good faith and brought up on the talk page, it is almost never appropriate to re-insert the disputed changes after it has been reverted in good faith. This is all part of the WP:BRD, which I myself am quite fond of. The key part here, if there are only two users involved (i.e. one user trying to make the change, and one user trying to revert the change) is to find common ground and reach a compromise or even a temporary solution on the talk page. Again, if coming to an agreement between two users proves too difficult, there are the aforementioned options available to solicited more opinions.

I hope this answers your question. It was a little vague, so I tried to answer in general terms. If you have a specific situation you'd like me to consider or comment on, I'd be glad to look into that (but I have been trying to lay low with the conflict, so I may refuse to add a content relevant opinion if the discussion looks too controversial ;). Good luck!-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at your talk page, that's a very good answer. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking a bit into this matter, but I don't want to get too involved, so forgive me for that. I'm also a little disappointed in the amount of back and forth editing, and the tone of discourse on the talk page. One last note, please try to be a little more careful when deleting references that are named. This edit caused a citation error (which I have since fixed). Carry on! -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the inadvertently broken link, and for most of your recent comments at the article talk page. I don't have time today to follow up there, but hopefully tomorrow. In the mean time, please be aware that I went to IAA's talk page a few days ago, and basically repeated what you said in your first comment above ("if it is reverted in good faith and brought up on the talk page, it is almost never appropriate to re-insert the disputed changes after it has been reverted in good faith"). In reply, she simply hid my comment and slapped the label "SHUN" on it. Maybe if you could explain the Wikipedia policy on consensus at her talk page, she might be more receptive? I feel like she's just been ramming through whatever changes she likes for months, without consensus, and despite objections and reverts. I'd really prefer not to go through some bureaucratic litigious exercise in order to get things on track. I suspect that a few words from you might work just as well. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aids

Hey, Ferrylodge. I just wanted to say that I wholeheartedly admire your work on abortion. You persevered despite biases present on the wiki, and ultimately you were banned for your efforts; that was clearly unjust, and the arbitration appeal was masterfully handled by you. Although I admit that I handled my arguments very poorly, I'm attempting something similar on Aids right now, and in fact, I have now come under attack by OrangeMarlin, who I remember seeing on your arbitration page. It was kind of funny to see the parallels between my problem and yours when I read through your record, although you did a much better job handling the argument than I did. I was a bit tired and got out of hand, but again, editors are completely biased and unwilling to partake in their responsibility towards guarding against POV.Merechriolus (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. I don't know about your situation, but I agree that the arbitration process can lose focus. It would be nice if the person who requested arbitration would identify the single most outrageous diff, so that everyone can focus on it. A dozen people citing dozens of diffs apiece would be fine, if the single most egregioius diff would be identified too. IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ferrylodge, I apologize in advance for any rules or Wiki etiquette that I may be breaking. You may also delete my comments, or edit them in any way if you would like. I would send this to you in a personal message or email, but didn't find that option of contacting you. I first got to the abortion page on wiki from a search for 'dorf' re. Tim Conway's character. I was incredulous that it did not have them or even links to them. I looked at the discussion page and have been following the past debate and spin-offs of it for the last several hours, especially your comments. (A form of internet stalking? :-D ) I also looked at the Fetus page and it really is it unbelievable that there would be no color pictures, rather pictures that make the human fetus look alien. I usually look up articles on Wiki that would be considered natural history articles, and *every one* has one or mutiple color pictures. I am sure that you are painfully aware of this. I was motivated to write to you to encourage you to continue your efforts in combating agenda based POV editing. I also would like to congratulate you on your civility, and "well spoken-ness." I feel somewhat intimidated even to write to you. I have a great deal of respect for you from what I have read on the various talk pages as well as from your extraordinary efforts to fight bias. I also want to mention that you were right to keep the talk pages in English. (ref. the Latin tu quoque exchange) I don't speak latin, (I perhaps should study it sometime.) and the inclusion of it in the discussion page confused me. Keep up the excellent effort and good work. Finally, I don't know if it is meaningful to you, but I will offer up this morning's Mass for you and remember you in my Eucharistic Holy Hours. Signed, (a complete newbie) Rainphire ((added)) p.s. I've an uncle who is a patent lawyer, about your age too. You don't live in the twin cities do you? <grin> Ah, Never mind, he doesn't share your political views. Rainphire (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rainphire, thanks for your kind words. You can contact me privately by using "E-mail this user" over at the left-hand-side, if you ever want to. Tim Conway is a funny guy, but I think even he would turn into a sourpuss after editing Wikipedia articles for a few months! Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3R Violation

This is a warning to let you know you have reverted text four times within a day. You may want to self revert your last edit to avoid a 3R violation:

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Your second diff is an edit by you, not me. I'll reserve comment on your other three diffs.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Amis

Hi Ferrylodge: Do you know how to do a accurate crop of a photograph? I added a portrait of Martin Amis to the Martin Amis article, but it has a lot of extra stuff around his head. Nice stuff but takes away the focus from his facial features. Could you help me in any way?-Dwindle dwindle (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can probably get help at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've contacted them.-Dwindle dwindle (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain

Hahaha well I'm not so sure I can be called an expert, but I'll be glad to check out the article. I've glanced over it a few times before and it really seems to be great, but I'll make some changes where I see fit and let you know what I think FA-wise in a few days. Thanks for the unexpected drop-in, Happyme22 (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that would be great. I'll look forward to your verdict.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left quite a bit of notes on the talk page. It truly is a fascinating article with great potential, and you have done wonderful things with it. Happyme22 (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll go check out your notes. Really, Wasted Time R did almost all the work, I just did some editing of his stuff.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work by all of you. I want to give Wasted Time R a barnstar for all the work he did reviewing the article, but I can't figure out which barnstar to give him! Enigma ^msg! 22:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ferrylodge, quick question: Is the McCain talk page archived by a bot? At 165 kb, I was going to do it myself, but saw the "Do Not Archive!" in-text note near the archive box. Happyme22 (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm glad for your involvement in that article. I don't know the answer to your question about archiving that article. Actually, generally speaking, I know next to nothing about archiving.

Incidentally, I'm in process of trying to track down a better formal portrait of him for the top of the article. It's still unclear if I'll be able to get one. See you later....Ferrylodge (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not archived by a bot, but some idiot put a giant sign not to archive the top few messages, I guess. Enigma ^msg! 22:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, I think that the article is definitely GA worthy, and I know that I would support it for FA. So I think the best thing to do right now, to start up the FA process, is to nominate it for GA status. What do you think? Happyme22 (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, a GA nomination sounds like a great idea. Unfortunately, I'm all tied up at work at the moment (not to mention endless ArbCom proceedings). Perhaps you could do it?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to. Happyme22 (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've put up Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Early life and military career of John McCain. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA for the main article probably makes sense for now; it will help ramp it up for the expected objections when it goes to FA. I also need to make some fixups/cite upgrades to the main article, to mirror what I did for the subarticle; will get to that in next day or so. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that GA is probably best for now, because it will give the article a boost when going into FA. Happyme22 (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks for the strategery.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:John McCain

Any idea what happened here? I tried to revert an edit, but instead it removed half the page. Enigma ^msg! 22:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like everything got straightened out. Sometimes Wikipedia can do wacky, unpredictable, unintended things.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gestational age

I've made some fairly bold edits to the Gestational age article (and the Talk page comments, of course). I would be interested in your thoughts about it. NCdave (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dave, thanks for your message. I understand that you're asking for input in a good-faith effort to improve that article. However, I'm always hyper-sensitive to the Wikipedia policy against "canvassing" and am reluctant to jump in right now to edit that article. See WP:Canvassing. I'm not saying that you've violated that policy, but rather am just saying that I'd rather be safe than sorry.

Generally speaking, I think it would be nice if we could just present one definition of "gestational age", and then say that there are different ways of measuring it. The subject of ages is already confusing enough without the definition of "gestational age" becoming confusing too.

Incidentally, if you ever want to contact me by email, please feel free (see "E-mail this user" over at the left-hand-side). Where in North Carolina are you? Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

Newspapers and magazines get italicized in plain text and cites, but broadcast organizations such as CBS News or CNN do not, nor do wire services such as Associated Press or Reuters. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I get for copying Obama's article. :(Ferrylodge (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The online Ch 1 of Nightingale's Song that we link to is just a portion of the chapter, pages 31-35. The online Ch 1 of American Odyssey that we link to is the full chapter, pages 17-34. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't know of cites for the POW and theater medals. Timberg only mentions his getting the Legion of Merit one in a private ceremony at Sec Navy John Lehman's office. Maybe there's some mil database that's open that has these? Has he ever made public his full military file? Wasted Time R (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ima Hogg

Thank you for your help in improving Ima Hogg. I appreciate your taking the initiative to search for more sourcing! Karanacs (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. If you knew my real last name, you would understand why I rarely make fun of other peoples' names. But hers is a hoot!Ferrylodge (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes to the text (unless they dramatically impact upon WP:WIAFA) can be better covered on the article talk page, so the FAC doesn't become cluttered, risking chasing off subsequent reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, no problem. I moved the comment from the FAC page to the article talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Miss Ima"

	Nice job on "Miss Ima"!
	To all of the excellent editors who were part of the Karanacs-led collaboration to bring Ima Hogg to featured status, it was a pleasure working with you on such a fine article about a great lady. Thank you so much for your contribution to this fun collaboration. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]	File:Ima large.jpg

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 ::::::Wouldn't the best place to allow accumulation of evidence be at the talk page, rather than directly filling up the article with it?  Then when everyone has listed all their sources at the talk page, there can be a decision about which ones to use in order to keep the article to a reasonable length.  If the article is directly filled up with sources on one side of the issue at one rate, and is directly filled up with sources on the other side of the issue at another different rate, then the article's balance could get seriously out of whack, don't you think?  By the way, I'm certainly not ruling out the possibility that some of the editors at that article have been trying to push a POV (I've witnessed plenty of that in various articles), but it's always best if people who object to that POV-pushing do so in the most effective manner, and so that's why I'm asking you questions.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge#top|talk]]) 21:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
+Shouldn't rain on your parade but.... no matter how much evidence you amass on the talkpage Mastcell,J*gay,slim*,*gordon, etc ( some times I think they are one and the same ) will bann you anyway - but really who cares a twit project run by twits ( but not dumbies ). I am still waiting for an explanation of where M*'s idea that poppers are harmless comes from, how kerosene melts steel, how Treblinka is a mjor death site when all real historians say not so ( all court cases ...yadayada...). Some of the science articlea are okay - unless the article is really an ad - but anything to do with history or "social" science is so full of bull you don't even have to be an expert to piss the wikiEmperors off ( ie they don't know enough about the subject beyond PC to argue - or they know their argument is full of it ( ie fat ladies can burst into flame and totally cremate themselves and at least one thin man - read the holocaust article) I think M* came from nowhere so fast and sounds so similar to a few other admin/editors I have run into, that I suspect they are a multiply birth tag team or the same person. Good luck - but I don't think they want anything near the truth in most/several articles. ( I found this out searching for Mastcell on the web to see if I was the only one runnig into his goofiness
 ==Cite author order==