User talk:FT2

ADVANCE WARNINGS: 2007 SCHEDULE

• Known away dates at present: - weekends 26-28 January, 10-11 February.
• In the meantime, please leave any messages on this talk page to read on returning.
• Have a very good new year, whatever your version of a new year may be, and a healthy happy editorial 2007!

-- FT2

• Archived talk page comments: /Archive

Wikipedia IRC channel: [1]

Services Link: [2]

Others: society -- religion -- studies -- research -- ap -- asa -- terminology -- emo -- med

RFPC draft

A/guide: WP:SIR, Wikipedia:Canvassing Contribs tool: [3] RfA list: {{Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report}}

NPOV Cite

"Wikipedia does not exist to determine truth. It is not our purpose to decide if NLP's claims are true or not. It is instead our purpose to fairly represent both NLP's claims and the claims of its critics. The purpose of consensus within Wikipedia is not to determine truth, but to determine the wording of articles. Nobody needs to modify their personal views in order to achieve consensus on the wording of the article. However, anyone who is not committed to Wikipedia's core principles is likely to be more concerned with hammering their viewpoint than they are with agreeing upon wording which fairly represents all side." user:Jdavidb [4]

Temp links related to RfA

• 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities (11 Nov 2004)
• Animal marriage (07 Jun 2006)
• Cultural and historical background of Jesus (02 Jun 2006)
• Empathy (30 Dec 2005)
• Hypoadrenia (22 Oct 2005)
• Judaism and Christianity (11 Oct 2005)
• Labrador Retriever (03 Jun 2006)
• Movement to impeach George W. Bush (14 Apr 2006)
• Mysticism (04 Feb 2005)
• Neuro-linguistic programming (29 Oct 2005)
• Neuro-linguistic programming (04 Nov 2005)
• Neuro-linguistic programming (05 Nov 2005)
• Neuro-linguistic programming (07 Nov 2005)
• Neuro-linguistic programming (12 Nov 2005)
• Neuro-linguistic programming (13 Nov 2005)
• Neuro-linguistic programming (27 Nov 2005)
• -phil- (16 Mar 2006)
• Polyamory (04 Feb 2005)
• September 11, 2001 attacks (11 Dec 2005)
• Stimulation (14 Nov 2005)
• Stimulus (24 Oct 2005)
• Talk:Uses of torture in recent times (18 Dec 2004)
• Talk:Uses of torture in recent times (18 Dec 2004)
• Talk:Zoophilia (09 Dec 2004)
• User talk:Mushroom (12 May 2006)
• Wikipedia:Requests for investigation (28 Apr 2005)
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy (11 Nov 2004)
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy (13 Nov 2004)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject NLP concepts and methods (06 Jun 2006)
• World Tribunal on Iraq (28 Apr 2005)
• Zoophilia (20 Oct 2005)
• Zoophilia (14 Dec 2005)
• Zoophilia (01 Jan 2006)
• Zoophilia (16 May 2006)

Temp save of working edits behind hidden comment section, view source to see

RfA withdrawn

I really respect your decision to withdraw. Make sure you clean up the page into this format, and remove the RfA from the main WP:RFA page.

Though I hadn't met you before today, it would be my honor to renominate you when you feel your edit summary usage has improved enough. Λυδαcιτγ 15:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I would support that. Good work, and your decision to withdraw will only make my support even stronger when you are next up. --Guinnog 17:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Camonica2.png

Could you please find a different source for Image:Camonica2.png. I don't believe the current source is entirely reliable. It looks more like a sloppy MS Paint job right now. An actuall museum would be a better source. --Phoenix Hacker 10:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR block

Regarding reversions[5] made on January 5 2007 to Labrador Retriever

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(above discussed by email with editor concerned. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC))

Seriously... thank you for protecting the Labrador retriever section and for your additions. I've been fighting vandalism on that page for months. -Erikeltic

Global Warming Article

The oddest thing happened when I was reviewing the article. I scanned through the first few paragraphs and was immediately struck by an incredibly inappropriate and biased statement that had almost zero relation to the article. I can't remember the exact sentence but these words are burned into my mind: "hypotetical bullshit" and "don't believe John Kerry". I was stunned to see such a ridiculous, poorly executed and poorly spelled attempt to discredit the theory of global warming. I immediately created an account with Wikipedia so that I could register my objection to this bizarre transgression against the spirit of unbiased information. After logging on and reading the rules for discussing articles I went back to the global warming article to cite the inane statement. As you might have guessed it was no longer there. I am fairly certain that the statement in question came after the last line in the fourth paragraph: Although warming is expected to affect the number and magnitude of these events, it is difficult to connect specific events to global warming.

I know that I saw those words. I know that they no longer appear for me whether I log in or not. I am reporting this in the hope that whatever is going on can be stopped.

Thanks, Chris —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ccgleason (talk • contribs) 08:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Global Warming Thanks

I love Wikipedia! Thanks for the thorough response. I am an English teacher at an inner city high school (Dorsey) in L.A. and I take immense comfort in recommending Wikipedia as a resource for my students to conduct research. I was alarmed at the nonsense Arnold 19 posted, but the processes you described are as much as one could hope for in this information age. I have ridden the Wiki-Wiki bus many times in Honolulu and have just now discovered the connection to Wikipedia; one more reason to feel good about this online encyclopedia. Again, thanks so much for the rapid and excellent discourse over my concerns. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ccgleason (talk • contribs) 00:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

(relates to this reply to this question. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You're awesome

That it:).Nina Odell 14:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm the exact same way - I can't stand ideological or copy messes. If you're also a professional masseuse with a decent car and a job, I might ask you to marry me:).Nina Odell 14:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You joined the neutrality project - I've been a member for a while. Check this out [[6]]. That's not even the half of it. I specialize in editing atrocities for neutrality, among other things. Nina Odell 15:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You're married already, aren't you. DANG IT. :) Nina Odell 15:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

New Wikipedia article Covert Marriage. Nina Odell 15:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I like to force people to read my user page, but I guess you're probably right...Are you sure someone didn't slip you a mickey and marry you? I would...but marriage is a construct anyhow. I think a ceremony is lovely, but a real marriage is built on an daily (even hourly) basis, and subject to constant change and revision. That's my two cents, anyhow. Nina Odell 15:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to give you a chance to tweak your essay before I read it tonight. I'm off to work.:)NinaOdell | Talk 17:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job

Good job on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I would like to draw your attention to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#"Biographies of living persons for deletion" (BLPfD) policy proposal and [7] (See also: [8] [9] [10]). WAS 4.250 20:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Check it out

You're on my user page - which makes you famous!:).NinaOdell | Talk 01:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A wholesale wiki-wide promotion of Wikipedia Wikiprojects. Can you whip that up? Tonight please:). NinaOdell | Talk 02:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk 02:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a background in marketing, but it doesn't seem to help much...*sigh*...NinaOdell | Talk 02:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Please and thank you - both please!NinaOdell | Talk 02:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not working right on your talk page - see my sand box...sigh...NinaOdell | Talk 02:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not if you can't sit at the computer!NinaOdell | Talk 02:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A server would crash with the number of members on THAT page;0.NinaOdell | Talk 03:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dudley.jpg

I reverted the image to the last version which had Dudley Manlove, removed the image from the Labrador Retriever article[11] since that was intended to be the dog version, and explained the situation to the person who uploaded the copyrighted image and added it to the Lab article.[12] BigNate37_(T) 15:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I am impressed ...

... by your work @ Wikipedia. I know we do not do enough of this in these wild frontiers, but here you have my appreciation for a good job well done consistently over time. Would you be interested to be nominated for the mop and the bucket? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Farmers Insurance article

I added a "Plaudits" section to counterbalance the "Criticism" selections. I did my darndest to keep NPOV, but would be grateful if you could give it a quick review to ensure that I kept my crayon inside the lines. I'm kinda new at this...Buzzards39 06:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Farmers Insurance pt. 2

Thanks for looking. I agree with the way you have changed the section from good vs. evil to varying opinions from third parties. As I did disclose previously on Syrthiss's talk page when he was making some edits, I am an insurance agent who does sell Farmers products, though I am not an employee of Farmers or its affilliates, etc... When I first looked at the page a week or so ago, there was a rather strident anti-Farmers screed posted by "Router", who I believe, though I cannot prove, is the owner of a Farmers Gripe site. I deleted the paragraph where he called Farmers the "Worst Insurance company in the USA", while leaving his examples, though I did consider them to be misleading. After a short revert war, another editor added the positive stuff that you deleted a day or two ago. Long story short, I was just trying to put some balance in there, realizing that an Insurance company will not always be in the right. If others are content with the article as written, so am I. You can see my comments on the article discussion page, as well as the talk pages of Router and Syrthiss. Again, thanks for your help. Buzzards39 14:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a question about your RfA

Why did you put those boxes around your answers to the questions? And how?--CJ King 04:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Readability, to make it easy for others. And it's just a table with a solid border. Check out Help:Table for how to use tables in Wikipedia, it took me some time but they're very useful to know how. The option to set a style (including border style) is easy to do. The command looks like this:

style="border:1px solid black" or if you want a background it might be: style="border:4 px dotted #603322; background-color:blue"

The thickness of the border in pixels (px), the style of the border (dotted, solid) and the color of the border (standard HTML colors such as black, blue, darkgrey, or RGB based such as #603322) are all things you define. The code for a simple section of text with a box round it might be:

{| style="border:1px black solid"
| usual text in a table
* list
* list
more text
|}

and that will look like this:

usual text in a table list list more text

You can indent by adding a colon before the initial {| if you like - but no space between ::: and {| or else the markup won't work.

Hope that helps! Good luck! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Catching up

• Oh, I'm not bad. In college now. It's so weird to think that I edited WP back in high school, and that I'm still (sort of) at it. How 'bout you? I seriously would have thought you'd have been an admin by now. (Although it's kind of cool that I get to vote in your RFA ^_^) ♠PMC♠ 16:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

penchant for cleanup

Hi, I saw your userpage comment that you enjoy writing intros to contentious articles, and I thought maybe you'd like to have a stab at Philosophy, which is in the middle of a bit of a kurfuffle. (I'm just observing from the sidelines, not involved). Just a thought, if you have any spare time (ha!) and interest. :) —Quiddity 01:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I made a list of external examples and past diff examples in this thread, Talk:Philosophy#Interlude.

The present problem seems to be Ludvikus trying to take over, and he's on course for an RfC for editwarring and personal attacks if he keeps it up. It might be more complex than that? Sorry it's not much to go on.

Based on the history page: Lucidish, Banno, Dbuckner, and Rick Norwood are longtime contributors there. Lucidish started the article itself. —Quiddity 01:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good :) —Quiddity 02:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Quiddity's summary. I've worked with Lucidish (Ben Nelson), Banno, and Norwood over many years to defend this article. Don't forget also Mel Etitis who is a distinguished Oxford philosopher. There were disagreements before but nothing like this. The problem is not one but two difficult editors who arrived at the same time. Ludvikus is, as the man says, heading for an RfC. Lucaas is not so aggressive, but has a poor grasp of English, combined with a belief that he knows everything about everything. If you could help, much appreciated. Mel gave a very good summary of the problem, (why Philosophers don't edit the Philosophy page) - I have a link to it on my user page. Best Dbuckner 14:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

One further point - there is less disagreement between professional philosophers over the basic definition than you would think. There is a page Definition of philosophy which summarises what different philosophers have said on various key points, all of which should be somewhere in the introduction, in my view. Dbuckner 14:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

More on Philosophy

Good work! Best of luck to you. It's good to have you on board.

From what I've read you wrote so far, things can only get better.

Sincerely, --Ludvikus 22:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Dudley (dog)

Just a message to let you know that I redirected the article Dudley (dog) that you nominated for deletion, but which resulted in a no consensus, to Labrador Retriever. For the reasons, see the AfD discussion and Talk:Dudley (dog). Hopefully your concerns are addressed this way. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Hello. You are handling this very well. You made two points in the philosophy page that I would like to answer here, as the talk page is cluttered enough as it is.

1. You say "As I understand it, there will be two kinds of sources that are helpful: notable philosophers who gave their own opinions, and notable comentators, academics and researchers (writers on philosophy etc) who summarized what the main threads in various debates were, and also often added their own views and interpretations as specialists/experts of various standings. Both are potentially useful sources. Has anyone suggested a good reason to completely exclude either?"

I have one reservation about the former approach, which is that when notable philosophers attempt to say something about philosophy in their philosophical work proper (as opposed to introductions for beginners, which many notable philosophers never wrote), they say things which are profound, difficult, cryptic, controversial, slanted to their own view &c. Thus Socrates says philosophy is like being a midwife. Kant says it is like milking a he-goat with a sieve. Wittgenstein says it is like getting a fly out of a fly-bottle. I can quote you many other things like that. The difficulty here is that such remarks require interpretation, and I read WP:OR as specifically warning against any source that requires interpretation. Thus I prefer the rather dull and prosaic definitions you find in sources by authoritative writers, like Quinton or Ayer or others, aimed at a beginner audience. Which is what WP should be.

2. You also asked for a brief flavour of what the dispute is about. Easy. The whole controversy is about whether the method of philosophy should be characterised is rational, logical, critical &c. It's odd, because all professionally trained philosophers agree at least on that (thought on not much else). Yet the debate is raging around that. It's mostly due to the fact that it is very much between professionally trained philosophers, and people who are not.

Hope that helps. Dbuckner 09:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Congratulations! --Guinnog 16:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. You're now an admin, so have fun using the new tools to help the project keep improving. Use them conservatively, especially at first, and re-read the policies as necessary. Don't hesistate to ask for help, and dig in to help out with the backlogs! - Again, congrats. - Taxman ^Talk 16:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well done! If you need any help with your shiny new admin tools then please don't hesitate to ask. Regards and happy mopping, (aeropagitica) 16:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Even though I opposed your nomination, I hope that the issues raised in the process help you in your decision process, and that you prove me wrong and justify the community's trust in you. -- Avi 17:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations from me, too. Have fun with your new responsibilities! :-) --Conti|✉ 18:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My first edits post-RfA will be as follows:

1. This post (if I don't mention this one, somebody else will). Done. [13]
   1. Fix the darn mistyped wikilinks in the above :P (okay, add that one in, too) Done. [14]
2. If it's not clear already, clarify in the article I wrote a few weeks back, Wikipedia:Editorial oversight and control, that admins don't have a privileged voice in discussion, beyond certain limited powers used to ensure discussions run smoothly. Done. [15]
3. Sign up for Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks (if anyone actually asks for help on this, I'll have to get advice in some cases for starters , but like I said, its a point of principle that people aren't in fear of doing the Right Thing, so count me in). Done. [16]
4. Watchlist the 'suspected socks' page, again as I commited to do to the RfA participants.
5. Thank individually each of those who gave 'oppose' and 'neutral' votes, for their honesty, and see if any follow-up is of use.
6. Thank individually each of those who were supportive and showed trust, and undertake to try and continue to live up to their standards.
7. Reread all the things I didn't need to know the minutae of, until now.
8. Carry on with Philosophy, and a few other articles I'm working on, and hope they go smoothly.

A brief generic "thank you" first for the trust... and now I'm off to grab a coffee. May we all in our own ways, find ourselves Doing the Right Thing and support each other. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was an interesting RfA, wasn't it? Congrats on the successful nomination and may you wield the mop and bucket with equanimity, grace, and humility.

If you want to get some great tools to assist you with the janitorial aspects of adminship, you can check my User:Jossi/monobook.js. I can help you customize it if you need. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles update:

During the RfA I significantly updated or worked on the following articles. However I did not update my user page "list of articles", or list them here, in order to prevent the appearance of self-promotion. Now the RfA is over: Linux distribution ... Cheddar Gorge and Caves ... Philosophy (editor dispute) ... Solid state disk / Solid state drive (merge) ... Wikipedia talk:Notability (software) ... Personhood ... Wikipedia:Appealing a block ... Watch ... Farmers Insurance Group (COI) ... WP:3RR ... Nuisance.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well done from me too. Good luck with the mop. The Rambling Man 19:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

May I add my congratulations. Thanks also for your explanation and apology, though I see that you still have not said on Talk:Tie and tease that you will not make it a redirect again. I had not noticed that you made Ruined orgasm into a redirect, but I shall revert it. I do hope that you can take away two lessons: don't make major alterations when you aren't 100% awake, and don't edit in areas you don't understand. Best of luck as an admin, and if I can help you with the benefit of my experience as an admin on Wipipedia, I shall be delighted.--Taxwoman 23:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus

I'm afraid your attempt to put things right on the Philosophy page was hopelessly optimistic. Ludvikus is completely out of control. I am simply reverting everything he edits, and will continue until he is permanently banned. Dbuckner 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

For a sample of this drivel, see my comments here. Dbuckner 19:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editorial oversight and control

I just read this which you largely wrote yourself. It seems a fine piece of work. Well done. --Guinnog 19:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Query

I'll write ya a bit later tonight ok. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 02:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. First of all, are you sure you have admin access? I don't see you listed as an admin. Now even if you don't have admin access, you can mediate disputes. In fact, some people like it better when non-admins mediate. Advantages for both cases.

Anyway, the main thing is to try to keep as neutral as you can. And if you have personal feelings about the issues, try to keep them under wraps. Think of yourself as a referee or an umpire or a judge. You are non-partial and have no official position on any content issues. You are just there to keep people in check and to get people to work together. Now, don't get intimidated by those who say "well you are favoring the other side!". Remember NLP. It wasn't that the mentors favored the pro-NLP side. They were just much easier to deal with and didn't violate rules nearly as often as the anti-NLP side.

As for protecting pages. Well. It's a judgment call. If you feel as though things are getting out of hand, then ask for protection or if you have the power, protect the page yourself. What does "out of hand" mean? This is a good example. Page was being edited rather quietly and not that often and then BAM! Lots of reverts and name calling and hostility. That's when it was time to protect. The number of edits aren't really what you go by. In fact, an article with alot of interest (like philosophy) is going to be heavily edited. What you by is what the edits are and in what attitude the edits are being made in. The red flag for me personally is when people are discussing things in edit summaries but not on the talk page as in that example I gave you. That's a good indicator that it's time to protect the page, let people cool off and see if you can get them to talk on the talk page.

As for editing protected pages, don't do it. :) Unless. It's a non-controversial edit or it's something that a consensus has been gotten on. Otherwise, as soon as you edit a protected page or declare an edit by an involved party "vandalism" and revert it while the page is protected, you make people think that you are biased even if you aren't. It's just not a good idea.

Well that's all I have for now. If you need any other help, feel free to ask. I really appreciate that you came to me. I'm not a bragging type but I do have almost 2 years experience as an admin so I've been around the block a few times. So. Any questions, ask. Like I said, if you don't have admin powers, you can still do just fine. You'll just need to ask me or another admin to do whatever it is you need to do. My main thing? Stay neutral. Just think of yourself as a referee and not a player. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll copy your response in here and then respond. Easier.

* If I'm helping with a dispute, as opposed to a "stake" in the article, does that make me "involved" for PPRO and BP purposes?

• • Depends on who you ask. :) To me, if you are actively involved in mediating something, it is actually a responsibility of yours to block and protect when necessary. As someone with admin access, you are essentially a cop. You would only be considered involved if you had edited the article in the past. Are there others who think differently? Yes. But I think the general consensus would be that you are acting neutral and therefore, should be able to block and protect without problems.

* If I'm clearly there just to help it flow better in response to a problem, am I at risk of being hauled over coals if I take (appropriate) action after warning or making the problem clear, on protection (edit war) or blocks (if one party is visibly persistent with personal attacks or other policy breaches), etc?

• • Raked over the coals by whom? Are you referring to the users involved in the situation or other admins? In the case of users involved, yes. You will always have users who say you are biased or who will complain when you do blocks. As for other admins, as long as you keep the blocks appropriate and the protection time appropriate, you should be ok. What's an appropriate block? Well the general consensus is 12 or 24 hours for a first offense. It depends on how severe it is. Then after that, I myself double. So 48 hours and then 96, etc. But again it's up to you. If it's a user who has been behaving and suddenly goes off the deep end, a short block is ok. But remember. Before you do ANY blocks, the users need to be warned once and probably twice. Gotta have a long leash. This isn't like NLP where there was no leash.

* If I'm already involved with an article, and a problem blows up (some heavy duty POV editor arrives on the scene and such), wheres the line where you would personally say "I'm too involved, I won't block or protect even if the behavior or edit war is outrageous, I'll post on WP:ANI instead"? * If a banned/blocked editor that I was involved with (such as our sock-vandal from last year) appears to come back, would you say that blocking the new sock was appropriate, or should I ask someone else to because I was previously involved in that dispute before the block/ban?

• • I'll handle these 2 at once. If it's someone you've dealt with before, yes, go to AN/I or AN. Absolutely. As for being too involved, if you stay neutral, you should be ok. But you know, if you aren't sure about a decision or are debating what to do, yes, definitely go to AN or AN/I. Sometimes guidance and support from others is helpful. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I think you get the gist of it. If you are there as a neutral party by agreement of a consensus of people involved, then you are considered uninvolved yourself. As for the NLP socks, if they do appear, I would suggest sending it to AN/I or AN or maybe request a checkuser. I wouldn't recommending blocking them on your own. That could lead to problems. Honestly, you could bring them to my attention as well. I did alot of work on NLP but I'm still a neutral party on it. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus

There are actually two problem editors on this page, but the other one (Lucaas) is better behaved, so I shall stick to the one called Ludvikus here. The problem is that

• The philosophy article needs to cover 2,500 years of philosophical history in a tight, concise way, with relevant links to more detailed articles. Ludvikus persists on posting long rambles about pet subjects (mostly OR), such as McCarthyism.

• The reverts have mostly been reverts by other users, pointing out that, while new contributions need discussion, deletion of contributions made without any consensus can be deleted without discussion

• Ludvikus is obsessive (follow his edit trail) making dozens or even hundreds of edits a day, works through the night and is utterly tireless.

• He will discuss changes, but in a prolix and unproductive way that makes cooperation tiresome.

• His changes are unsourced. Moreover they are mostly disconnected stream-of-consciousness ranting in broken English, and are generally peculiar in some way.

The Bristol Stool Scale comment by an admin is splendid, and sums the problem up perfectly. Dbuckner 09:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And here is a comment by another user that sums it up well. Dbuckner 09:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

PS The user has now been blocked for 48 hours. That solves the problem for 48 hours, at least. Dbuckner 12:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Seconding DBuckers comments

I have to support DBuckners comments here. I have a laypersons background in philosophy, but I am a practicing, licensed psychiatrist. Trace my IP address, and you will find my office and medical license verified. DBuckner is entirely correct in what he says. This editor Ludvikus is entirely out of control, and I am telling you, unless some action is taken to deal with this, it will go on indefinitely, and ruin the effort of collaboration in the philosophy section. Richiar 23:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for the headers - FT2

Go for it. :) There'll be a few things you'll need to change (mainly the status template, if you want to keep that). Let me know if there's anything confusing in there. Luna Santin 00:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

SD

what is "deleted under A"? Any links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.22.36.247 (talk • contribs)

replied, see User talk:125.22.36.247

congratulations

Congratulations! For what it is worth, my main piece of advice is: generally, do not act any different now than you did six months or a year ago. Administrators have certain powers but I prefer to see them as comparable to the powers a housecleaner or garbagemen have, rather than a cop or judge - they enable us to help out with countless meaintenance jobs (e.g. our version of cleaning up grafitti). It is true that among these are powers to block users or protect pages, but I have made it a rule of mine (which I admit, with regret, that I do not always live up to) never to use these powers based on my own judgement - i.e. I will only use them when Wikipedia policy makes it an unquestionable and thus practically automatic act, or when there is such a strong consensus that my act is simply executing what is clearly the will of the community.

It is true that you may be able to help mediate a dispute effectively, or resolve one, or guide the improvement of an article. But in virtually all of these cases (in my experience) your ability has nothing to do with your being an administrator, just with your experience, knowledge of the policies, and good sense - i.e. virtues you had long before you became an adminisrator, and virtues shared by many non-administrators. It is the posession of these virtues that is important and merits respect, and they have nothing to do with being an administrator as such. In other words, someone who isn't an administrator but who is experience, knows the policies, and has good judgement is just as (and sometimes more) likely to improve a situation as I can, despite the fact I have been an admin for a few years.

I hope you don't mind some more advice (and needless to day, this is all just my opinion), but I can finish up by giving you practically all the advice I could possibly give anyone in just a few more sentences. One: Avoid wikilawyering whenever possible. Two: Almost all conflicts can be resolved by (1) patience (willing to let things play out over a few days or weeks) and (2) careful attention to our core policies, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:Verifiability. Assume people act on good faith and give people the benefit of the doubt as long as they are not violating these policies; if someone clearly violates them gently encourage them to read them carefully but don't hesitate to revert if that is what is necessary to comply with the policies. Three: remember, always remember, that talk pages are for improving articles. If someone starts using a talk page as a soap box or platform for long, tangential discussions, (1) do not get sucked in (I know, this is hard to avoid!) and (2) discourage the contributor from misusing the talk page. To echo what I wrote above, I would share this advice with any editor and I do not think one needs to be an administrator to follow this advice and many great editors who are not administrators follow these principles all the time. Any time I see an editor who follows these principles and who is criticizing something I did, I really do try to step back and reconsider whatever it is I have done - even if that person is not an admin, and I am.

Anyway, best of luck! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Closing AfDs

Hi FT2, remember when closing AfDs to put the header ABOVE the section header, and not below, as it affects the bot making it think they are still open! Cheers. --Majorly (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter King

I see from his talk page (User talk:Peter J King) that you haven't invited Peter. He is the most competent philosopher on the WP. As you can see from his talk page, he is very depressed about the state of the article, and will need some persuasion to be involved, but would be worth it. I'll say a few things about how your approach seems to be working wonders &c, if that helps. Actually, not having Ludvikus for 48 hours has helped as well. However, we will have him back tomorrow so we will have to see how it goes. Best. Dbuckner 17:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

But see my note on Banno's page after finding vandalism elsewhere. There really is no place for the professionally trained in Wikipedia. Really isn't. Dbuckner 18:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions on Logic

This is probably better for your talk page.

• The concept of category is fundamental to Aristotle's thinking, to much of the thought of the Middle Ages. Aristotle says that every kind of thing falls into one of 10 categories. Some reductionist logicians, especially Ockham, disagreed with this, and argued that there are fewer categories (substance, predicate and relation from memory). Others disagreed. I don't understand your remark about this connecting somehow with 'rhetoric'. Rhetoric is generally regarded as 'cheap tricks' for winning arguments, not to be confused with 'logic'. On the West-East thing – I don't understand what you mean by 'nondual'. Generally, to those who argue that Eastern philosophy is really very different from 'Western', I say, put it all in a different article, and for goodness sake give it a respectable, careful treatment. On the other hand, if it really is similar, reference appropriate sources.

• On the development of logic, this is a huge subject (and a specialist area of mine). Roughly, most of it all came from Aristotle, though some important parts contributed by the Stoics. It was developed and formalised extensively in the Middle Ages, but the Aristotelian and Stoic bits were never properly integrated. The integration was by Frege, Peirce and others, who transformed it into what we have now. The mathematicians, as far as I know, never contributed much until Frege. Hope that helps.

Dbuckner 10:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the material on 'nondual'. Can I dare to say this is not philosophy, as I understand it? Dbuckner 14:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note. The thing to bear in mind is that many traditions - mystical, religious, alchemical, and so on, attempt to address the 'big questions'. Philosophy, uniquely, tries to address these by a rigorously logical approach, which includes a certain view on how things are categorised, and many things besides. None of the things you've described look like Philosophy to me.
• The problem is that 'philosophy' has a very wide sense in which it also means the mystical, meditational, alchemical and so on. But these are all very different from philosophy as studied in departments of philosophy. Indeed, when I taught it you often got students who thought they were going to study yoga or meditation or whatever. We had to explain they had got in the wrong course by mistake.
• I should also say that professional philosophers tend to get a little annoyed, indeed incandescent when this confusion happens. You have to be careful! Dbuckner 16:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Edgeplay

You might find something in these links:

[17], [18], [19], [20]

There really needs to be a health warning on edgeplay, if this can be done without triggering a torrent of "WP is not a How to guide" responses. Please come back if this isn't enough. --Taxwoman 12:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congrats on your new set of buttons =) I found them shiny and to my liking; hopefully you do too. If you need any advice, of course I'm always here. Mostly I've been keeping quiet. I haven't been adding much content lately...too lazy. Mostly I'm just wandering around deleting things at CSD and PROD. *shrug* It's a living, eh? ♠PMC♠ 17:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus

FT2, I have been asked on my talk page to commence an wp:rfc on user:Ludvikus. However, I think that there is enough evidence here now to implement a community ban for Disruptive editing. Specifically, mainly and briefly:

• His editing of Philosophy is tendentious. The talk page amply demonstrates that there is little support for his views. Furthermore his his affectation of martyrdom is tedious.
• He is campaigning to drive away productive contributors. His actions on Philosophy make that page unlikely to attract new editors. His insults on user talk:Peter J King clearly had a strong influence on his removing himself from the Wikipedia. His comments on user:Mel Etitisare another example, including the disruptive posts for which I blocked him; indeed, his obnoxious approach to other editors in general, and the sheer volume of tendentious material he posts, "operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors". I've also noted that - probably thankfully - he has not engaged in the discussions you have set up.

Would you object to such a ban? I would value your opinion. If not, I will implement it forthwith. Otherwise, we will be faced with the longer process of an RfC. Thanks, Banno 20:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

RFC

I wasn't asking for your advice; but simply if you would object. I've used the arbitration process enough to know that it is far too slow - the very reason that community bans were introduced. Since it seems that you cannot see the problem, I will commence an RfC in the hope of producing sufficient evidence to support a community ban, or to collect sufficient evidence for arbitration. Banno 06:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(That post came out sounding too terse. I understand the position you are in, and apologise for compromising it. I do not think that mediation will succeed with this particular individual; I have been contacted both on my user page and by email by others who agree. As Mel said, he is not the only problem, but he is certainly the main problem.) Banno 06:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have stopped work

I am no longer working on the Philosophy article. Conditions on the talk page make it impossible. I will return (both to the article and the workshop) when something is done about the disruptive editor. Dbuckner 08:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

brief comments on philosophy page

As someone who has offered suggestions for improvement of the philosophy page, I was requested to send you my comments on the current problem. First of all, given the nature of philosophy's scope and variety of motivations, a collaboration on a general article on philosophy is a nearly impossible task itself, making consensus and vigilance over disputes and disruptive editors more critical than other articles. I agree with the editors such as DBruckner and Banno that the editor in question is making reasonable work on the article difficult if not impossible right now due to 1) the personal nature of his comments 2) rapid-fire 24/7 commentary on the talk page, making it difficult to respond and collaborate. I don't think, however, that he is entirely unreasonable or lacking knowledge; though I think editors who are involved front-and-center with philosophy (as students or professionally) should be given some weight. That certainly does not mean that nonacademics don't have a valuable say, but philosophy as a topic will continue to be a failed experiment on wikipedia without expert guidance, even and especially if that means a number of experts arguing (making good arguments) over the basics of philosophy. This type of debate is currently overshadowed. Zeusnoos 14:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I was also asked to leave a comment. I agree with much of what Zeusnoos said: philosophy is now, and always will be, a problem area. Also, I appreciate your measured approach to the dispute: nobody can ask you to do anything that does not conform to the usual Wikipedia stages of conflict resolution. Studious temperance is a measure of prudence.

That having been said, I've spent a year on this article, and have at least some idea of what the usual state of quarrelling is like. The most recent situation is a departure from the norm, in the sense that there are frequent battles that are literally grounded upon nothing, but whose consequences are more or less tragic. The cause is that some parties are simply not willing to discuss anything with other editors -- they completely and persistently ignore what has been said to them, and then produce reams of material against imaginary demons.

I.E.: the introduction mentions words like "rational" and "enquiry"; these words are (wrongly) taken to be signals of "anglophone" or "analytic" philosophy; and use of these words in a single description of philosophy are taken to indicate an exclusion of non-analytic and non-"Anglo" philosophy. This is like going to an article about God and getting steamed because some people are quoted as insisting that He must be a swell guy; after all, some people think God is a jerk, so if you say "some people think God is swell", then you're marginalizing those who think he's a jerk. The mere expression of a single point of view is taken to be a violation of NPOV policy. That's a special kind of censorship -- the sort that plays the victim in order to pull everyone else's strings.

The above leaps over NPOV policy seem ridiculous, but it is likely because they stem from continued misreadings of the positions of other editors. Repeatedly, I have expressed how I would like for well-written and economical points about non-analytic positions to be included. These are ignored. The problem editors have closed their ears. Nothing can be done so long as their behavior continues as it has. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 15:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Situation desparate

I am so confused, I can't follow any of the discussion. This is not just disruption, its total chaos. I regretfully submit, per request for participation, that a ban on said individual is essential. Comment on the remark: "He's actually improved lately"-well, no, he just recycles. With no disrespect to him, there must be apppropriate self control demonstrated by editors. I further submit, that this situation is so bad, that experts in the field of philosophy have been driven away, which is tragic to the Wikipedia project. To this I stongly object. Furthermore, as a member of the forum of encyclopedic standards, this presents the need for editing protocols. It means the difference between having an encyclopedia and the national enquirer. Sincerely Richiar 15:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I very strongly agree with the other editors above. Ludvikus has repeatedly violated WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE, and is displaying very strong symptoms of MPOV and WP:OWN (at book parts too). He ignores stylistic conventions on talkpages and within articles, and skirts the edge of WP:NPA with constant sarcasm and innuendo, and a confrontational attitude. I'd agree that firm action of some sort is needed. (See also his letter on Jimbo's talkpage) --Quiddity 22:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"Appeal to Jimbo" posts usually communicate rather more, and rather more deeply, than the writer would probably wish. If there is merit to it, it will be clear. if there is none then that will also be clear. Therefore for me it's not something I view per se as a problem. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I am an observer of the dispute about the philosophy page, admiring of your Norwegian-Mid-East-peace negotiator-like efforts, but I feel another point of view should perhaps be put. I feel a few points should be made that have not been made, if action is to be taken against Ludvikus.

• Your account of Ludvikus's activities tended, at one point, to give the impression he is the kind of crackpot who believes in conspiracies of world domination perpetrated by the Masons and the Jews. Despite the postings you reference in this regard (which have a high degree of irony), I think these are the kind of crackpots Ludvikus feels he is combating. He also seems to be fighting for what he thinks is textual accuracy in relation to the Protocols (I have no idea if he is right). In other words, he's a different kind of crackpot.
• There is no doubt that Ludvikus has proven hard to deal with, for those "editing" the philosophy entry. There is no doubt he shows signs of grandiosity, of mania, and of narcissism. And there is no doubt he has added nothing of worth to the actual article about philosophy. But to me there is still the appearance of a lynch mob going on (a lynch mob will sometimes lynch a guilty man, but they're still a lynch mob). Why do those opposed to Ludvikus so relentlessly take the bait? To answer this question means asking: what kind of people are drawn to the "philosophy" article? The answer is: the grandiose. I can put it like this: Ludvikus is grandiose in an overt way; those editors opposing him tend to be grandiose in a covert way. Which is why they flail about how terrible everything is, about how intolerable everything is, etc. (or else, how concerned they are, that Ludvikus may be violent, etc.). They all want to be involved in the "Philosophy" article because they perceive it to be important, a flagship, etc. And their individual grandiose intentions and pretentions inevitably produce ego clashes. Nobody wants to blame themselves for this, so they find the individual who can become the scapegoat (indeed, who wants to become the scapegoat).
• And this is, really, Ludvikus's point. Whatever the academic status of the various editors, they are all mediocre. More than that, they lack insight (even that line: "the entry on philosophy only shows what non-philosophers think philosophy is"—no doubt the philosophy article is terrible, but this comment shows something about its author too). ALL OF THEM prefer talking on the talk pages to actually writing something. NONE OF THEM has the will to ignore "disruption" and simply continue doing what they're doing, because, given a choice, they prefer to blame and attack somebody else rather than risking finding out they aren't up to the job.
• It is not possible to tell if Ludvikus is playing a game or sincere: there really isn't much difference, maybe he is a sincere game-player. That is, he wants to provoke because he sincerely wants to stimulate the other editors to a kind of introspection, to philosophy. But naturally this is not the response he gets, and thus they show themselves to be lacking philos as well as sophia, that is, not to be philosophers. To which their response would be, either, "yes I am, I have a degree to prove it," or, "I don't need to be, I'm an encyclopedia writer on philosophy," but to which Ludvikus would seem to be saying: but you should be trying harder than that, if you want to write this very important entry on "Philosophy". That's his Socrates/Jesus/Napoleon/Nietzsche complex in a nutshell, but its a grandiosity common to all of them. He expresses his grandiosity flamboyantly, where the others repress it, so that it comes out as a kind of resentment and barely-suppressed aggression
• I don't know what the consequence of the above is, or if it makes any difference at all. But I do feel the impression that the other editors are good solid workers, of good intent, and good faith, is contestable, and that Ludvikus' manner of expressing himself makes this point, but that his manner of expressing himself also means this point will not be heard. Again, he has not made a positive contribution to the article, and he has indeed been disruptive, but perhaps what he disrupted was not itself a positive contribution, and when he is gone, the "work" will continue, but whose work, and what kind? ObserverA 20:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the above post is eloquently stated, and there is much truth to it. The Philosophy editors tend to be cranky, obstinate, melodramatic, cynical, etc. But it is also, frankly, a characature, based upon a few first blush impressions, and makes bold and plainly false and plainly infelicitous claims. IE:

To say that "ALL OF THEM prefer talking on the talk pages to actually writing something" is not taking the actual efforts of the people there seriously, and is belied by a year's worth of attempts, by myself and, well, everyone. The history page is there for anyone who wants to read it.

"NONE OF THEM has the will to ignore "disruption" and simply continue doing what they're doing, because, given a choice, they prefer to blame and attack somebody else rather than risking finding out they aren't up to the job" is either a) contradicting earlier admissions by implying (by use of scare quotes around "disruption") that the editor has not been disruptive; or b) if it is an admission of disruptiveness, then it suggests i) that an "ignore it and it will go away" approach would work, and ii) assumes that it hadn't already been tried; and both are false claims. Then, the curious "prefer to blame... rather than risking... etc." expression is added to the end as a non-sequitur. Can't a person blame nobody at all, and still be ignorant of their own faults? Does blame of others preclude self-criticism?

There is a purpose to Wikipedia talk pages, but their purpose is evidently at odds with Observer's idea of them. The purpose of the talk page is to improve the article. Thus, claims like "they show themselves to be lacking philos as well as sophia" because of a lack of philosophical musings is simply not appropriate for Wikipedia. It is appropriate for blogs, etc. No good Wikipedia editor, as Wikipedia editor, is a philosopher, a scientist, poet or peddler. We are teachers and writers and that is it.

In my estimation, amateur psychologizing about "covert graniosity" and "suppression" and so on is perfectly ignoranble. Once we reach that level of debate, there really is no debate anymore, there is just a sewing circle. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 22:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi FT2. Just wanted to let you know that I am not a sock-puppet (as I believe they are called) for Ludvikus. I am an observer of the philosophy shemozzle, and it would not surprise me if there quite a few others who simply watch the page without writing, given the interest in philosophy, and the many reasons dissuading contributors (Ludvikus being only one of those). I would not really characterise my comment as a "defence" of Ludvikus, but more an attempt to put a counter-view to those being put forward, or as an attempt to put things in a different context. As I stated explicitly, Ludvikus IS disruptive, and has NOT made a positive contribution. Just not sure of the positivity of the other contributors either, for reasons outlined. I would further point out that Lucidish's comment to my comment to a certain extent highlights what I am saying: e.g., I did not say that the other editors DON'T make any edits to the entry, just that they PREFER to talk on talk pages; also, e.g., he refuses to give any credit to the notion that scapegoating might be a way of avoiding self-reflection. Nor was I trying to say what talk pages are for or not for, nor was I saying that there are no reasons for being aggravated by Ludvikus. Finally, I have posted my comment under another name than I ordinarily use, because I do not really want to get caught up in a "defence" of Ludvikus, but I do feel the whole situation reflects on all the participants poorly. Hope this clarifies things a little. ObserverA 00:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi FT2. One last thing. I only reluctantly and hesitatingly decided to leave my comment, because its really not my thing (although I am interested in philosophy more generally). I felt like leaving the comment because I felt the chorus of unanimity masked some other issues (and by the way, I am no fan of Lucaas either; I find him an unhelpful fellow who knows very little but is quick on the draw edit-wise). I understand that you are checking my sock-puppet status in relation to Ludvikus, which I understand, and it is fine with me if you make public the results of this search. But if possible I would prefer if you did not then reveal my other username, since I really don't want to get caught up in this or attract fire from people who disagree with me (in short, I'm afraid they might interfere in the editing I do under that name). Just wanted to make my comment and leave it to others to sort out (such as yourself). Good luck. ObserverA 00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I am surprised you would cite my use of "Jewish language" as some sort of evidence. ObserverA 00:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Observer. Many of your intentions were communicated accurately enough; I was only thrown off by your use of scare quotes, and was unsure if any implicature was present. Anyway, it's important that my reply is read accurately as well, so I trust you won't mind this follow-up. a) Your claim about "preference" is a wild characature, given the breadth of the efforts that have in fact been made. b) It is not that I "refuse" to give any credit to the notion that scapegoating might be a way of avoiding self-reflection; rather, I entertained the idea, and i) found it more likely due to the fact that Philosophy editors seem to be obstinate and melodramatic by default; ii) found it to be the kind of dime-store psychologizing that makes good faith discussions impossible. c) I'm sorry, I have no idea how to interpret "and thus they show themselves to be lacking philos as well as sophia, that is, not to be philosophers" except as a slight, and a covert recommendation that we rabble get our hands dirty with a bit of philosophy. Only in that context does it seem to make an argumentative contribution. Otherwise, it's frankly just another curious remark among curious remarks. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 00:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi FT2, just letting you know I sent you an email half an hour or so ago. ObserverA 01:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your reluctance not to give your real name and want to appear, as such, like a fuzzed out face on television. The reason is? In defending Ludvikus, you fear the wrath of certain people, you must obviously have witnessed this wrath. Take responsibility! As to my edits on the page to which you refer they are, unlike much of wiki-philosophy, fully referenced, though I admit that only within English-speaking philosophy do they represent a minority position. And I remind you that having a minority position, which may differ from your majoritarian view, does not imply that, like Socrates, one is ignorant. ---- Lucas (Talk) 04:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Couple of brief points. I have only been involved in the philosophy part of Wikipedia for a matter of weeks. Far from wanting to write the Philosophy article, all I planned to do was make some improvements to the Heidegger page, as it's a particular interest of mine. I quickly found out that on that and related pages, attempts to improve were systematically blocked. At this point, a few philosophy editors do seem to be working on elements of the philosophy article, but on each other's talk pages or elsewhere, because the main philosophy talk page has become a no-go area. PREFER [sic] to talk on the talk pages? The philsophy talk page has been virtually inactive, other than for Luvikus, since Jan 24. KD Tries Again 15:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Thanks for the help

Thanks for all the help you are giving this, FT. Sorry if it ever got a bit heated on my part. My nerves got a bit shredded by the whole experience. Your level-headed & cool approach is a great help. As I said, I am not getting involved directly any more, but happy to answer any questions you have. I liked your approach on the philosophy project, and happy to continue with that, though preferably after this has died down (if it ever does, of course!). Best wishes Dbuckner 09:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The comment you asked about

Things have been a bit blurred recently, but I believe it referred to the initial posting of material on the Analytic/Continental schism followed by the sub-section of Historical Notes. I (and others) listed numerous errors on the Talk Page. When corrections were made in the article, the authors sought to defend the material by reversions. Some corrections stuck, I think - I did manage to make Scandinavia non-English speaking - but most of the errors remain in the locked version. I hope this helps. KD Tries Again 16:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)KD

The Schism material was added by Lucaas, who retained it from a recently deleted article on Anglophone/Continental philosophy. The historical notes were, I am pretty sure, the work of Ludvikus. Of course, other hands might have fiddled with it by the time I commented.KD Tries Again 16:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Chidom

Could you do me the favor of closing this one? I stated an opinion in the case already, before I had ever done any SSP closing work, so would prefer not to be the one to close it - though I will if I must. There doesn't seem to be any other administrator interested in SSP - User:MER-C closes a few, but is adamant about not being an admin - yet - on his talk page, otherwise I would have asked him. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 04:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess you didn't get the time, so I closed it myself. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Email Receivable, But not Sendable at this time

• I got your 5 points.
• What you would like is very easy for me to give you.
• And it's nice to have a civil voice like yours around.
• I give you, my word, on said five points. Now here's what I would like:
• 1. A public apology from User:Mel Etitis for rating me a "6 or 7 on the Bristol Stool Chart".
• 2. Removable of the Stigma associated with User:Banno's 48 hour ban against me.
• 3. Please answer, or ask of me, anything you wish, by just sending me an Email, anytime.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 11:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

ObserverA

It's clear that ObserverA is a sock-puppet of somebody, an account created only to make these comments and to attack the editors on Philosophy etc. I wonder who feels the need to hide behind it, though? Is it cowardice, embarrassment at attacking those he or she would normally pretend to be friendly with, or what? peculiar. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

To Mel Etitis, it is clear that I am speaking from an account created in order to leave the comment. What makes it clear is that I said it. And I also stated the reasons I was doing it. To suggest this is "cowardice" is just silly. ObserverA 21:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And the reason I left my comment was not "to attack the editors on Philosophy," no more than it was to defend Ludvikus. ObserverA 22:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, have you seen User talk:Ludvikus#Reverts on Jews and Bolshevism topics? Is he getting worse, or just being the same but over a wider area? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, just to make a point that shouldn't have to be made, I didn't place Ludvikus anywhere on the Bristol Stool Chart — he has (genuinely or deliberately) misread my comment (and then repeated it all over the shop in its misinterpreted form). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This denial is completely untrue, and designed to mislead you. He rated me a "6 or a 7 on the Bristol Stool Chart". Now will you permit me to rate him on it, and here? If you do it will clear the place in my mind of his very foul odor. I have asked him to apologize. But he seems to refuse to do so. Instead he is being vindictive towards me. He now has launched a compaign of personally attacking me as someone who goes around calling other editors "Antisemites" I believe that the major "disruptor" in the "shop" is Mel Etitis. The others (and I'm not naming them) are all under his control. It is I who have been the victim of personalattacks from the very beginning. I think you should consider whether Mel should suffer a Community Ban. If you re-examine the evidence, you would agree. --Ludvikus 17:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This is what Wiki Civility requires: Civility is a code for the conduct of editing and writing edit summaries, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another. Yours truly, Ludvikus 17:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify my words from before, I have stated all I intend to on this issue. It is not a debate I wish to watch grow. I ask that you drop it without further discussion, and I ask Mel not to raise it or talk uncivilly again, and that's my sole discussion on it right now. Especially not here. Thanks, both. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"his very foul odor" is your notion of civility? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Saw2-wrist-trap.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Saw2-wrist-trap.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 03:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Help over at CAT:CSD

Hi, and congrats on your promotion! Per this discussion, I'm dropping a friendly note to some of the recently-promoted admins requesting help with speedy deletions. I am not an administrator, so if you don't feel comfortable diving into deletions - or if you need more info - please don't come to me, but I'm sure that Cyde Weys would be happy to guide you if you want to help. Any help is great, but I'm sure that Cyde and others would deeply appreciate it if you could put the page on your watchlist and do a bit of work there on a regular basis? Maybe weekly? Thanks in advance! Anchoress 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Learning Communities Article

Dear FT2, First of all, apologies for mis-posting my comments without first starting a new discussion.

Many thanks for your astute comment on the distinctions between learning community and collaborative learning on the Learning Community article. I will address this question in further changes I post in the article, and then we can discuss it further, as appropriate. Many thanks again for a constructive point.

Best wishes, --Ed1vel1 10:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Sports playing surfaces

Thanks a lot for the suggestion and the help :) I must say that "playing surface" makes me think of the substance that the rinks/fields/courts/etc. are made of, not the rinks/fields/courts/etc. themselves. I think Sports fields ("An area reserved for playing a game") comes closest to what I had in mind. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC on Lucas

I am gathering evidence against Lucas, who is proving a 'difficult editor' for a number of us. I have started a page here. This includes most of his recent edits, but nothing on his articles that sadly ended up as cases for deletion. Anyone with suitable diffs, please put them there, or on my talk page. Let's clear up this town once and for all. Dbuckner 12:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The comment referenced here says it all. A very good editor is leaving an important article. As I say on the talk page (I'm sorry to have to be so blunt) it is the fault of people like you that this is happening. It doesn't have to be that way. Anyway, I am taking another Wiki break - the trolls have won as far as I am concerned. Your approach guarantees that good editors like MT will leave (and he really is a good editor - I was trying to encourage people like him to stay) and the good will you have shown to the trolls ensures that they will stay. And now Ludvikus is back this week. It is all too much. Dbuckner 07:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

FT2, your lengthy reply to Dbuckner's comment on the Talk:Philosophy page seems to boil down to: "don't be upset, if Lucas is such a rotten editor, then a slow, dispassionate evaluation of the evidence will show that to be the case, and the machinery of consensus will make it all better". But this guy has been "contributing" to Wikipedia for six months now, with the exact same pattern of edits that are, among other things—POV, OR, and poorly written—from literally his first day here. He is incorrigible, and his incorrigibility makes him a troll and an open wound on Wikipedia's quality. He has dismissed the views of at least four (probably several more) Ph.D.s in philosophy, including at least two who are specialists and defenders of the "minority" position that he is currently claiming as cover for his incompetence. You want a dispassionate survey of the evidence—I ask you, just look at his edits. Look at the album of evidence here. Look at the expert editors he has repeatedly exasperated and driven away from working on philosophy pages. Ask anybody who knows a whit about philosophy to examine his edits and they will tell you he is an incorrigible crank. Even if you don't know anything about philosophy, just judge him by his appalling abuses of Wikipedia etiquette and policy. Look at his behavior in the Afd, and his multiple floutings of policy. Look at his repeated ignoring and deleting of warnings. Dbuckner is dead solid right that if you can't see that Lucas is a problem editor, then you are being part of the problem by encouraging him. Six months! How much longer — how many more good editors must be outraged to the point of quitting — how much more crap editing of flagship articles does it take? 271828182 14:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[After edit conflict]
I have to agree. Treating disruptive editors with kid gloves like this simply encourages them, creates severe tensions with editors who are trying to improve articles, and leads to the loss of good editors from Wikipedia. The same thing is happening in many subject areas, though Philosophy is one of the worst: editors who are hasty, make large numbers of very poor-quality edits, are aggressive on Talk pages, and who seem genuinely to have no idea that they're less than perfect. We really do need to work harder at dealing with them (firmly, quickly, but without being unkind). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had any direct confrontation with Lucas myself: this is most likely due to my being too new here, and not having much background in philosophy. I have reviewed Lucas'recent editing and find the comments of User:271828182 to be accurate.And I agree that it seems to be another situation that is intolerable for many editors-Lucas has recently demonstrated a belligerent attitude, and wanton disregard for the editing community. Richiar 15:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've been struggling to get the simplest corrections and improvements past Lucas practically since my first day on Wikipedia. Currently I am not attempting to draft anything for the philosophy pages in which he's involved. It's not worth the hassle. KD Tries Again 18:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)KD

Quorn

Thank you for your artful compromise regarding the "incontinent of feces in public!!" quote on Quorn. I believe it works perfectly, and appreciate your effort on that article. Jfiling 22:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus again

He has begun to make the same snide, sarcastic personal comments about other editors on the philosophy talk page [[21]]. Examples:

"Dbuckner's compaign to characterise philosophy as 'rational enquiry'..."

"I suspect that this campaign - under the banner of Rational Enquiry - is a smoke screen to dismiss Continentals as perpetrators of Nonsense. That, I think, is the view of Mel Etitis - who, by the way, is Wikistalking me at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Here we have another fine example (sarcasm) of rational enquiry, regarding a 'bizarre' observation concerning allegedly myself. Dbuckner, as I said before, I recognize your dedication to philosophy. ...Yet you, Dbuckner are the most gifted socially - if anyone can make this discourse more Rational - it is you who can do it. "

I would urge you to acknowledge his incorrigibility. KD Tries Again 18:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)KD ... And this is the response I earned, further down the page:

"What is the aim - is it not to get rid of me and my argument? Isn't that precisely the method employed by Stalin and Hitler? With whom one doesn't agree - him one must silence." KD Tries Again 22:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)KD

HeadlyDown?

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#NLP (Neurolinguistic Programming) update. Incivility and continued suppression of information An IP mentioned this, and you're the one to contact in this situation.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been suggested by an NLP editor that, based on edit patterns, HD may have moved into the LGAT articles. I want to AGF, for all involved editors. Whats the best procedure for identification? Lsi john 16:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Anything come of this? Peace.Lsi john 23:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Abrahamic Religions

You are essentially suggisting a template for Abrahamic Religions. Personally, I am opposed, because whilethere are historical connectionsbetweenthe three, there are also historical connections between Christianity and European pagan religions, as well as Christianity and Platonicphilosophy; there are also historical connections between Judaism and ancient (pagan) Egyptian and Babylonian religions. In my personal view, the whole idea of "Abrahamic religions" selectively focuses on one meaningless historical/mythical connection (because we know that Abraham did not practice Judaism or Christianity or Islam - if he even existed. Yes, all three religions give a certain importance to Abraham. But all three religions give more importance to Moses. And all three religions give much moreimportance to God). In the process, it obscures what I think are more significant differences between the religions, their views of God, and even their views of Abraham. I think the idea of "Abrahamic religions" is rhetorical and political, and I suspect invented by people who think that by emphasizing a commonality between Judaism Christiantity and Islam they will somehow mysteriously promote peace between adherants of the three religions. I am absolutely certain that this will not happen (peace will occur through an honest acknolwedgement of differences, respect for differences, and dialogue, and it is cynical to suppose there must be some common element like Abraham - the more one believes in that, the less hope there isfor peace between Hindus and Muslims in India, for example!)

This is my personal opinion - you may find others who agree with you of course! Slrubenstein | Talk 11:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's just my opinion ...

Given your last comment on my talk page, here is my suggestion: start a "wikiproject" on comparative religion. First, do a serious improvement drive on the article Comparative religion - I am suspicious of the current categories there, which I suspect do not dso justice to the current scholarship in the field (for example, I am sure many college courses focus just on Judaism and Christianity because these are the two most popular religions in the US - but not because this is how scholars organize religions for purposes of comparison), and create a series template on comparative religion. This would not restrict comparisons to artificial categories like "Abrahamic religions" but allow room for what is really going on in scholarship, for example, the vast body of work that compares 1st Temple Judaism to other ancient Near eastern religions, and Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism to Zoroastrianism and other religions dominant in Babylonia (where Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism developed), as well as articles that compare Christianity to other religions popular during Roman times, like Mithraism. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

NLP (aaaaargh)

Ta very much. I was thinking it's probably just as well we didn't know about the user list. Imagine trying to get that past AB even using RBI. Fainites 13:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you FT2 but under the following (from your list of users), I couldn't work out the 'several years of rigorous empirical research - see next section' bit.

The British Psychological Society, which lists NLP alongside Cognitive Behavior Therapy and Hypnotherapy as 3 therapies that come under the remit of the UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP), providing a link for people seeking these therapies. Further, its 4th Annual Continuing Education Program included a key-note speaker talking on NLP (Leanne Harris, University of Hertfordshire). It has also awarded (2004) its key Level B accreditation to a psychometric profile system based upon NLP meta programs, citing "several years of rigorous empirical testing" -- See below (next section).

Nothing seemed to match up.Fainites 23:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus again

He is making life impossible. I have asked several administrators to act. Is this a kind of punishment against the philosophy editors for having criticised your way of dealing with the situation as above? It's not very kind. Dbuckner 07:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: The Doctor

The Doctor is quite a mysterious character full of contradictions. Trying to create a fictional bio is futile. Discuss further on the talk page with other Whovians if you're unsatisfied with the current structure of the page. Wiki-newbie 22:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Self disambiguation (very minor)

A looooong time ago you added a definition to Witness (disambiguation) relating to mysticism. I am disambiguating "self" right now and I'm not sure what context belongs to your witness definition. Could you replace it with a different form of "self"? Hoof Hearted 22:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't think there was a good match either. If you would like to write an article for Self (spirituality), you may. I propose that I skip the Witness page for now and fix all the other dab's for self. When I'm finished, sometime this week, if you haven't written an article I'll just remove the wikilink on the Witness page. No big deal. Thanks. Hoof Hearted 13:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Farmers Insurance (again)

Sorry to bring this mess up again. You were very helpful a month or so ago. I made the mistake of researching some of the criticisms posted without citations that supposedly used state insurance department statistics. Some of the claims were just not true, others were misleading in that they used absolute complaint numbers as opposed to ratios of complaints divided by premium, or cherry-picked years when the numbers were not as good while ignoring other years when even using absolute numbers, Farmers was not the worst by any stretch of the imagination. When I made edits to reflect what I had found, Mr. "Router" reverted them and threatened to have me banned from editing. So I am calling his bluff, so to speak. If you could take a look, I would appreciate it. And if you don't feel that I should edit anymore, then I will abide by that. But I am doing my imperfect best to keep a balanced article with NPOV while eliminating false and misleading statements. I tried to take your advice about finding other subjects to edit as well. My religion and avocations have been pretty well covered. As a hiker with many miles under my belt, would it be Wiki-appropriate to set up articles on hiking specific geographic locations akin to a trail guide? Buzzards39 05:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale

"Tweaking" is not adding 300 words to a plot. Saying "is next seen" is not as good as "travels to", because you are changing universe. You are going from an in-universe to an out-universe, also, it's just poor wording. Also, Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching the film, and we are not supposed to explain every little detail to a reader just so they know exactly how something happened. They can watch the movie for that. The section is not meant to tell the reader what goes on in a movie, it's meant to provide context to the rest of the article, which is about what goes into making the film and the outcome of its release. You are adding minute details that just boggle the plot with verbose wording. You don't need to explain how LeChiffre loses money (e.g. who has bet millions against the market, based on the anticipated fall), just saying he lost money summarizes it all fine. This, "supervised by a Swiss banker to ensure the winnings will be paid to the winner" is irrelevant, because no one attempted to be someone they weren't just to win. You are attempting to overly explain things that don't need it. They can watch the movie to find out how Bond believes Mathis is a double agent. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot for a better understanding of what should be in the plot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the blanket revert was not an attempt to make it appear that your contributions are not appreciated, only that this plot was trimmed from an excessive length by several editors months back.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Plot should not explain everything to someone. The whole point is for them to see the movie. You don't need to explain short selling, that is why there is a link to the article. It's all about how you can streamline the plot so that it doesn't become the primary subject of your article. " using security video to identify" is no important. Just saying he identifies his target is enough. The means does not always have to be explained, just the outcome. We don't need to explain LeChiffre lost millions, or even 100 million, just saying "to recoup his losses" says that he lost a lot of money. Who the game is supervised by is extraneous. Bond doesn't know that Mathis is a double agent, he suspects as by his own words, "he hasn't been proven innocent either". He doesn't know, he tells M to continue interrogating him. Don't need to say there was a car crash, it's minute. Try to limit quotes in plots, we have one at the end because it's rather important to the franchise. Don't need to call Mr. White a stranger, as he's been around since the beginning of the film. Again, streamline, don't need to say $100 million every time the money issue comes up. Too much extraneous details about Bond being on the phone, then Vesper is withdrawing the money, then Bond gets to the bank but she has just left. The only thing I can really see that needs to be explained is probably LeChiffre being under pressure from his clients, which can be summed up just like that in the "to recoup sentence". It should probably read, "Under pressure from his clients to recoup his losses,....".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I went through it. It's fine. I didn't revert anything so much as I just reworded a couple sentences. I left a comment on the talk page with a little better explaination, but my edit summary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

Since you changed the word to "offer", I changed "custody" to "sanctuary", because it didn't sound right to offer custody. They could take him into custody, but when I hear "offer custody" I think he has kids and his wife is giving them to him. I also changed your word "untrustworthiness" to "failure", because it's a bit more descriptive of what happened to Le Chiffre.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

what is POC?

Do you no????60.50.13.4 01:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Garment fetishism

Thanks alot for the work you've done to the Garment fetishism article. I'm trying to make people understand why they can't have unattributed stand alone articles and that the unbrella article is a compromise. I know that I can be abbrasive and abrupt but I just don't make exceptions for clear cut policy violations. If you have any ideas on how to best defuse the "redirect" situation I would love to hear about it. Thanks again. NeoFreak 19:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: You are, of course, correct. I've added the article to the third opinion page and hope that some outside input will help. Thanks. NeoFreak 00:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Approval of stub tag removal

I noticed that you had tagged the article "Comparison of X Window System desktop environments" with an {{expand}}. I have nearly rewritten the article and given it some direction and subsequently removed the {{expand}} tag. I hope you think the requirements you originally had in mind are satisfied now and that you approve of it. I've posted more on the discussion page.

This is your edit of the article I'm referring to.

-- Artagnon 10:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of X Window System desktop environments

I read what you posted on my userpage and I agree with you. We need comparison of performance of differnet libraries, and more quantitative data. Only, I'm not sure what exactly to put in :) However, I'll make an effort to extend the article in that direction.

Yes, one serious drawback with my writing style is that I don't cite references. I just write stright out of my mind and it can be a serious problem. I'll put in an {{Unreferenced}} right away (Done). I will try to keep these points in mind and cite references too.

Thank you for your suggestions.

-- Artagnon 04:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Another major modification. Have a look and see if you like it. I'm also awaiting your new suggestions :) -- Artagnon 07:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond to each one of your points seperately.

1. A "compatibility and interoperability" section. if the appropriate libraries are loaded, can any desktop do the job of any other? Or are there compatibility and interoperability issues with some? -- I'm not sure this is very relevant as there are few compatibility and interoperability issues today. Sorry.

2. Degree of configurability, "out of box" usability, complexity of setup, expert level needed, stability etc (high/medium/low - it won't have a measurement but surely they can be relatively ranked for things like this and some basis or examples given?) -- Very good suggestion. I was thinking of doing the same thing but the only issue was that the basis for my rating that was missing. It's very subjective, how complex one finds a certain desktop. It's very difficult for anyone to comment that ratpoison is easier to use that GNOME so I'll try to put in ratings that are blatantly clear. The other disadvantage is that I can't rate desktop environments I haven't used on the same scale and I'll leave it to someone else to fill it up. Quoting features in the desktop environment as a basis for the ranking never occured to me. It's also a very good suggestion.

3. Well known pros and cons (if any) -- Umm... you mentioned this in your previous comment, but I think I'll try to merge this with the previous point. Nobody likes to say that their desktop environment has cons, and therefore this section will be very hard to create :)

4. A specific section "KDE vs. GNOME", given these are the most common two desktops provided to newcomers or as defaults? Sample screenshot of each, description how each organizes its desktop (notable differences?), comparison of visible capabilities built into each (multiple desktops, etc) ... -- Excellent suggestion! KDE versus GNOME is very useful to a lot of people. And there are a LOT of references to cite. Just google "KDE versus GNOME" and you'll see what I mean. I don't use elaborate desktop environments anymore so I have to download them first to be able to post screenshots :P

Yes, your list was indeed useful. Thanks :) -- Artagnon 06:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, another major edit in accordance with your suggestions. Thank you for your encouragement and useful comments :) I thought about your "compatibility and interoperability issues" longer and harder. It struck me that there are is quite a lot to write up on it. Just that my memory is rusty about such issues as I haven't worked on an elaborate desktop for a very long time. Anyway, I've started the section with an issue I remember encountering. About the language, I totally agree with you. I was more careful this time while writing and made it a point to re-read what I've written. That doesn't guarantee anything though. The language might still be flawed :P

I might have gone berserk citing references. I'm not sure what's necessary and what's not.

I think the article is moving in the right direction. But I'm a little worried because a significant portion of the article has been written up on just the basis of our conversation. The article will certainly tend to be biased and incomplete. -- Artagnon 07:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject for veterinary medicine

We are looking for participants in a new wikiproject for veterinary medicine, in order to improve existing articles and create new ones. If you are interested, please sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. --Joelmills 21:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Camonica2.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Camonica2.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Selket ^Talk 05:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy et al

Just to let you know your tag has been removed twice from the DDP page. I have replaced it twice and advised them to discuss it with you. Fainites 16:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

HeadleyDown?

Hi FT2

There's been a lot of activity from a tendentious editor - Jeffrire ([[22]]), and I'm beginning to wonder if he might fit the profile of a HeadleyDown puppet.

Have you got moment to look at the on-going dispute on the Landmark Education Talk page [[23]], or the MedCab mediation process [[24]].

He seems to be working in collaboration to some degree with user:EstherRice, user:Smee and user:Pedant17.

Thanks. DaveApter 10:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Silver Labs

The information regarding Silver Labradors (under the main heading of Labrador Retrievers) is predominantly unsubstantiated opinions of blatantly biased non-silver lab breeders and owners, who post their personal anti-Silver Lab nonsense from anti-silver lab sites on the internet. Not only is the section referring to Silver Labs grossly biased, it contains considerable falsehoods and intentional disinformation, If those contributing editors can not substantiate and document: 1) "the original silver lab kennel had Weimers", 2) gene mapping was NOT done on silver labs in the 80s, and 3) Silver Labs are a "scam" (and all like accusations and slurs made throughout this category), then Wikipedia should insist these inflammatory and fraudulent accusations be withdrawn. In short, contributors on this site should be pressed by Wikipedia to either PROVE IT; or REMOVE IT.

By no stretch of the imagination is this site either correct or objective on the topic of Silver Labrador Retrievers. More importantly, when editing is done to this site to correct the incorrect allegations and accusations made by the anti-silver factions, this site editor (Sarrandúin ) removes the corrections in accordance with her own bias regarding Silver Labs (see site history as well as her remarks).

Because this site editor is incapable of editing for objectivity instead of her bias -- or even allowing both sides of the controversy on the site -- I request another editor be assigned to this site. If this editor is so delusional she believes she is being objective on the topic of silver labs, then the topic of what information is posted under the heading of Silver Labs should be settled by Wikipedia's Arbitration Board.

Dean Crist Crist Culo Kennels

Request for Third Opinion

template:History of Manchuria is suffering from extensive revert warring, and discussion is heading nowhere. A RfC was filed, but was only able to get one outside commentor[25]. Please provide a third opinion on whether template:History of Manchuria should be titled History of Manchuria[26] or History of Northeast China[27][28] to facilitate dispute resolution. Thank you. 08:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Template_talk:Unreferenced#Seeking_consensus_on_warning_text

Hi, just saw your comments and changes at Template_talk:Unreferenced#Seeking_consensus_on_warning_text, Unfortunately both changes are controversial. Adequetely has a long history of attempted insertions and deletions. Please see my comment and request for reversion your of changes. Jeepday (talk) 03:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! GDallimore (Talk) 09:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Headley Again

Could you check out Steve B110 please. He's being very pro-NLP on the NLP page but unconstructive in editing. He's now trying to make it look on the talkpage as if there's an agreement between himself, Comaze and myself to making the article more 'positive' and that we have been doing just that. He's also followed Comaze onto the Pseudoscience talkpage (like NewtonSpeed, just been blocked as Headley) and is again being unconstructive in editing and offering 'support' for Comaze on the talkpage as if they were 'best mates' whilst being very offensive to the other editors. I suspect this is just a different way of trying to embarrass and attack Comaze. (Note that in his final edit on the COI NewtonSpeed also falsely accused me of removing critical references to NLP).Fainites 21:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks FT2. Quick work! Fainites 19:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for closing out the Shane Hagadorn AfD, things did get rather complicted and at least three or four SPA-type accounts have been spamming the Pro-Wrestling AfD debates hoping to keep pages which should have been deleted at the PROD stage. And that one got especially tangled, thanks for sorting it out. Darrenhusted 22:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Kudos

The lengthy explanation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Is The Life (album) was a good thing and you deserve a bit of recognition for making a tough decision. Even though my recommended course of action (weak keep) was not what occurred, I applaud your work. — Scientizzle 07:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. People put a lot of effort, and often invest a chunk of their "feel good", into new articles. When a new article's created in good faith, it seems wrong to delete or keep it without leaving those involved a good rationale why that decision was made. I would want that too if it was an AFD I cared about.

Other good reasons come to mind: a good explanation also helps clarify to editors what was missing in an article or AFD post and how policies work in practice, and hence encourages clearer thinking - always a good thing :) Administrators are just as answerable to policy and neutrality as any other editor, and their decisions should be able to withstand fair scrutiny. Last, a good explanation reduces antagonism and bad faith wikistress, by making clear why. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Email account

Sure. Done. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 11:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silent Hill influences and trivia (2nd nomination)

Just to inform you I reverted your change of template here, per the instructions on the template. You started the close preceedings over an hour ago, and left them incomplete. DarkSaber2k 11:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)