User:Clawson/Archives/Talk 1

This page has been archived. New talk and comments on this page should be placed on my talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Clawson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Lst 27 00:43, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion on Vischeck, however its not compatible with Wikipedia at the moment. So I've gotta sorta wing it. ALKIVAR™ 22:19, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To-Do List Editing on Talk Pages

I'll thank you not to edit my own personal to-do list. —chris.lawson (talk) 21:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your user page was incorrectly in Category:United States coins. I fixed the problem by replacing

[[Category:United_States_coins|...

with

[[:Category:United_States_coins|...

I'm sorry; I didn't feel it was necessary to ask your permission to fix the problem, but I probably should have left a note explaining what I did. dbenbenn | talk 23:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Duplicates

Can you please answer this question:

How do I create duplicates while editing a section of a Wikipedia article even though I never try to do so?? Georgia guy 23:22, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Loonie

OK, I'll take your word for it. --Neutrality^talk 22:55, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:The value of coins

Thank you (a) for spotting the page and (b) reminding me about it. You had blanked the page, then put a speedy delete tag on it, but your comment was VfD. Normally people put the speedy delete on a page without removing the existing text. So I reverted back with the intention of deleting, but then I got cut off. It is gone now. --Henrygb 09:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:170.158.96.99

The previous block was 24 hours. I prefer not to inform vandals on how long a block lasts. They'd return to their old habits far too soon. I'd love to give him a longer block, but he only swings by occasionally. The collateral damage would be too large. Feel free to contact someone to block him if you catch him in the act, so we can block him while he's still active so he notices. Sorry, I can't be of more help. Mgm|^(talk) 17:43, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Please forward relevant emails to <My Wikipedia username>@gmail.com Mgm|^(talk) 08:59, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't heard back from the guy since I introduced myself and suggested to keep him unblocked for a while. I'll see if he can use this latest vandalism to track down the offender. Mgm|^(talk) 05:13, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

entheogens

also posted at Category talk:Entheogens.

Hi chris. The distinction being drawn is, as you say, between mescaline and peyote. Mescaline itself does not have a long history of religious/shamanic use; peyote, on the other hand, does. One of the purposes of this category is to expand the wikipedia categorization of hallucinogens beyond a simple scientific analysis of chemical class. Peyote contains more than just mescaline, to start with; in addition, the qualitative differences between the ingestion and use of peyote and the use of mescaline are great. For instance, peyote is often harvested, prepared, and administered according to strict religious ritual; mescaline can have that sort of associated ritual, but it is very uncommon and does not have the centuries and centuries of history that is associated with Peyote. Mescaline is bought from your local drug dealer and comes gel-capped, Peyote does not. Peyote is harder than mescaline- ie, harder to take, more nausea, etc, resulting in very different qualitative experiences.

The point of the entheogens category is not to categorize all hallucinogens/chemicals that can be used as entheogens. Ecstasy, acid, and ketamine all can be used as entheogens. Instead, the point is to create a category for substances with a tradition of entheogenic usage. Those who use peyote as an entheogen do not use mescaline, although they could; they do not talk about the pharmacological effects of mescaline, but rather the "spirit" of peyote. Many consider gel-capped mescaline to be almost sacraligious.

just to be clear, i am not trying to claim that peyote is "better" than mescaline, or that there is (necessarily) a difference between the effects of peyote and a concoction of pure extracts. There may be a difference, and there may not be. what is at stake here is not the reality of the scientific conception of mescaline as opposed to the reality of the spirit of peyote, or something similar; i don't beleive that such issues will ever be cleared up. Rather, Peyote has a long history of ritualized, entheogenic usage, as well as the idea of reality expressed in and through these ritual uses, while the chemical mescaline has none of these associated with it. The question is not about the truth of reality or the scientific difference between mescaline and peyote, or whether mescaline could be used as an entheogen. rather, it is a question of the great difference in history, culture, and ritual between the two.

Cannabis does have a history of entheogenic usage; you'll notice, however, that THC is not categorized as an entheogen. Tobacco is here but nicotine is not, psilocybes are here but psylocibin is not, ayahuasca is here but DMT and Harmala are not. For the purposes of this category, something is not considered an entheogen by virtue of its being a hallucinogen or its potential uses as an entheogen.

thanks. --Heah 02:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

no trouble at all! It makes me happy that people are paying attention to these pages. I think i'm going to start up a wikiproject dealing with precisely these issues, and i've given somewhat of an outline for it on the wikiproject:drugs talk page if you're interested. --Heah 02:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You have Kava listed as an entheogen but not ketamine? (193.144.34.54 06:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC))

Re: User:220.253.117.193

Hey, Chris, thanks for your good work and vigilance. Yes, I will block him if necessary, although I prefer discussion if possible (yes, I know that most administrators would have already blocked by now). I'll keep an eye on his contributions and if he keeps vandalizing, I'll block. I appreciate all the work you've done reverting. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LOL to your post on my Talk page :). Rick K 08:27, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

You going to sleep before you go to Ann Arbor, or after you get there? Rick K 08:30, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Just don't go to sleep while driving. I'm leaving soon, too, just about time to go to sleep and I am in California. Rick K 08:33, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Power off the computer and go to sleep!!!!! Rick K 08:35, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again, Chris. It's obviously taken care of now; have a safe drive. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

subst

Whenever you post a template on a talk page, use "subst:" after the double opening braces e.g. {{subst:test}}. This will cause the actual text of the template to be saved onto that page. It will help with the vandals you have had to deal with a few minutes ago. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For more information, see m:Help:Template#subst. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress

Hi, thanks for posting all of the vandalism alerts at WP:VIP recently. If you see several vandals who appear to be the same user, just list one of them and bullet-point them to save space. For example:

First vandal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Second vandal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and so on. (I was using the {{vandal|username}} template for these, btw.) --Idont Havaname 20:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rotten Articles

They are clearly not simply poorly written editorials, they are encyclopedic articles from a different perspective then the one Wikipedia provides, with information that Wikipedia also doesn't provide. To remove them without reading the specific articles (All of which I read before I added them to Wikipedia, instead of prejudging them as it appears happened after Pavel added me to ViP after assuming, by his own admission, that he hadn't read the articles he complained about) is absurd.--The Grza 02:51, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

As soon as my edits started to be removed (or I became aware of that fact) I stopped adding to it because I'm not a big fan of gigantic retarded edit wars. Actually, in order to make sure this can be a conversation about the quality of the links instead of a fight, I make this gesture: You've missed some, further down the line. I believe Joanie Laurer is the last one not removed, but almost all of my edits after the first Bohemian Grove edit are on this topic. Also, please make sure you don't remove other edits I added while adding these links (not a shot at you, but it happened once in an edit war and it made my head explode).

In reference to your comments about them being poorly written editorials, you removed about 30 of the articles in the course of about 25 minutes, which make your claim that you read each one before deleting it a little bit questionable. Another point I'd like to make is that POV is not a qualifier for removal. In fact Rule 4. on Wikipedia:External links says "On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is."

Many of these articles have the POV of the Rotten Library articles included in the page, but not in the link section. In fact, much of the material that is taken from the Rotten pages and finds it's way into the Wikipage isn't cited anywhere as the source of the information, and I know that I have at least used the page as a source, and there were also a couple pages that included the link already to reference the fact that information had been taken the page.

(Rule 3. Sites that have been cited or used as references in the creation of a text. Intellectual honesty requires that any site actually used as a reference be cited. To fail to do so is plagiarism.)

I don't think that there is a context where these articles aren't allowed under Wikipolicy, not is it vandalism or linkspamming as I have been accused of.--The Grza 03:03, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

As requested by User:Sockatume on the ViP page, I've posted this on RfC under Bohemian Grove (the first page I added a link to). I've also moved our conversation to that talk page in order to centralize it.--The Grza 06:58, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

RfC

What is an RFC and what will it do to Lapsed Pacifist?

Irish-Americans...

Can you hold off removing them for a little bit? I'm afraid it will lead to an edit war and reverts. I'm trying to figure out how to get a policy in place, then we can go through and clean them all up. I'll post the generic proposal location in the talk pages in a few minutes. :) Thanks. Wikibofh 9 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)

Do not remove any of my additions because all of my additions are legit and I am the main contributor to the list. 64.109.253.204

RfC & List of Irish-Americans

No problem. I would endore as well, except that I think one has to have been involved before the RfC began to do so...hmm, let me go look that up. :) func (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Derek Jeter

Do you have a source that proves Derek Jeter is not Irish? 64.109.253.204 02:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any sources of Derek Jeter having minor ancestry? My sources, which were the only sources provided, all seem to show him having at least 25% Irish ancestry, which does not qualify as minor. 64.109.253.204 06:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The sources I provided. They didn't say distant. 64.109.253.204 06:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Do not vandalize wikipedia because you are upset that I had sources on Derek Jeter and you don't. 64.109.253.204 06:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

If you want Derek Jeter on the minor ancestry list go ahead and do it, but putting people who are 100%, 50%, and 25% Irish on the minor ancestry section is not a content dispute, it is vandalism. 64.109.253.204 06:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Irish-American Mayors

Why should Irish-American Mayors be deleted? It is a perfectly reasonably list? If we delete Irish-American Mayors, than shouldn't we delete all lists of ethnic americans that are specific to one area such as Italian-American Mobsters or African-American Athletes?

Let's Be Friends

I don't have a problem with you and I don't want you to have a problem with me. I might have been in a revert war with Lapsed Pacifist before, but I am not in it anymore and seeing as how that was over, and you were also in that revert war, I do not think you should be so concerned about it. I have been behaving since then. I think most people see I have been behaving because no one has been talking about anything I've done recently, it's all about the revert war that is over. I want us to get along because I know you are a good guy and I don't want you to be frusrated with me. It seems people liked me better when I was breaking some of the rules, but now that I am behaving people are starting to have problems with me out of the blue. You can't RFC me for the revert war, because it is over, and I haven't broken any other rules recently and not currently involved with anything against the rules. Let's just please be friends. 64.109.253.204 03:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Why not? I just mean on wikipedia, of course, that we be friendly, I see no reason not to be friendly with each other. Is it because of the Derek Jeter thing? 64.109.253.204 04:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

You can't say I didn't try. 64.109.253.204 04:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Good faith

I did assume good faith - which is why I went through the time and effort to manually revert, rather than automatically doing it. My decision stands - a change like that needs to be sourced. If the anon didn't know that, now the anon has hopefully learned. Changes like that to a major article should be sourced or be accepted by an editor who knows what's going on and who got there before me. :P I did assume good faith; I'd like you to do the same. (And I apologize if I'm curt, I just woke up) --Golbez 15:41, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Minor Ancestry

Many of the people Lapsed Pacifist added to the Irish ancestry list are 100%, 50%, and 25% Irish. Do not revert to his edits of them being on a minor ancestry list, because that is not where they belong. 64.109.253.204 06:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

It is really low to vandalism wikipedia just because you are upset that one member has proven you wrong. 64.109.253.204 06:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Why do you hate me?

Why do you hate me? Ever since I added Derek Jeter to the list, you've been mean to me. 64.109.253.204 07:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Why won't you respond? 64.108.212.56 00:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Antonin Scalia

Antonin Scalia is Italian and I wouldn't consider Italians to really be considered white. Brownman40 05:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. By no means am I dead set on that viewpoint. I'll check out the US Census definition. Thanks. Brownman40 19:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Then why the headers are capitalised on the other 5 Episodes of the Star Wars Saga? Copperchair 04:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

With that I have absolutely no problem. My only concern is to have all the articles follow the same format. Copperchair 00:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

So proper names should not be capitalized?! Copperchair 08:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Chemical names

The ideal current solution will be to move boxes down a paragraph to accomdate the long term. Merely waiting for some other technical solutions doesnt appear to be of a good interest. -St|eve 02:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Uploaded at Image:Mdmascr1.png and Image:Mdmascr2.png - delete when done. St|eve 22:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

203.112.19.195

Anon deleted your comment on his talk page. It's been reverted (& then removed) twice. I don't want to deal with it; I just wanted you to know. Deh 14:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing my user talk page - If I remove a comment, do not put it back. Thanks! 203.112.19.195 01:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It is not acceptable to delete warnings from your user talk page. Doing so is considered to be vandalism. Further deletions will result in escalating warning levels, and if you persist sufficiently, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.—chris.lawson (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edits to User_talk:203.112.19.195: Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. 203.112.19.195 04:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi there, Replying to your edit on my user page, even though it's just the excat same thing repeated over again, can you please specificy just what about Japanese Academy Awards was vandlism? Thanks! 203.112.19.195 15:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Just FYI, Chris:

We are being trolled by a sockpuppet of a banned user. More effective measures are available to deal with him, should we choose to make use of them. --Ardonik.talk()^* 03:41, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

u.s.

your judgment is harsh. but hey, it's gonn be a contentious page. yaa. Crackatzzl 03:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

yeah

I hereby award you the **Assume Good Faith Reminder Barnstar** for your efforts keeping an eye on content of national concern, and sticking up for the occasional anonymous user. — Kzzl 5 pillars (AGFRC)

Star Wars

Since you had an opinion about the cast list, you might want to add your voice to another discussion about including the opening crawl in the article. User:Adamwankenobi insists on it, so it's come to a pseudo-vote discussion at Talk:Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Coffee 03:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

BBC Link on Tibet-related articles

The truth the mainland Chinese government doesn't want you to know...

How in the world is my edit considered meaningless?? That's YOUR point of view. I know that a lot of people would find that helpful and encylopedic. --FT in Leeds 01:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Duh. The Panchen Lama is related to the Dalai Lama. Both are related to Buddhism. Both are related to Tibeten Buddhism. And, because of the religious nature of Tibet, it is related to Tibet as well. Read the articles, and if you still disagree, please let me know. --FT in Leeds 02:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Did you read the article? How is it meaningless? Please explain that on my talk page please.--FT in Leeds 02:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Why are you bugging me so much!?--FT in Leeds 03:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

ADDING A LINK IS NOT VANDALISM. THIS IS UNFAIR!--FT in Leeds 03:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

LOOK, I'VE EXPLAINED TO YOU THAT THE LINK IS NOT OUT OF PLACE. LET ME REITTERATE: The Panchen Lama is related to the Dalai Lama. Both are related to Buddhism. Both are related to Tibeten Buddhism. And, because of the religious nature of Tibet, it is related to Tibet as well. --FT in Leeds 03:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW

I'VE READ AND UNDERSTAND NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF ARTICLES THAT ARE NOT NEUTRAL. FOR EXAMPLE, HOW CAN THERE BE TWO PANCHEN LAMAS? ONE IS REAL AND THE OTHER IS PLACED BY A COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT. BOTH ARE DISTINCT POINTS OF VIEW, YET BOTH ARTCILES EXIST. EACH OF THE TWO TAKES A VERY DISTANT SIDE AND ARE EXTREMELY POV. EXPLAIN THAT...--FT in Leeds 03:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

You explanation was meaningless. Please try again.--FT in Leeds 03:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

VANDALISM

What vandalism are you talking about? You think everything I do is vandalism. Can you be more specific???--FT in Leeds 03:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

MoS

What's MOS? I wasn't vandalising anything.--FT in Leeds 03:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

More Vandalism

While you are removing vandalism, please remove that penis pictures on that page. By the way, that wasn't me. It was probably Hottentot.--FT in Leeds 03:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, gotta go

It was nice wasting everyone's time tonight. I hope I don't see you again. Bye.--FT in Leeds 04:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Jean Overton Fuller

Bah, you're right -- somehow I'd missed the earlier versions by you and Rich Farnborough that didn't contain copyrighted material. I can only plead that I process a lot of copyvios and occasionally one bites me: I'm sorry. I note you've written a fuller article now: I've restored those earlier revisions to the history. Thanks for the heads-up and sorry to have missed those! --Ngb^?!? 07:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Calton

Calton never should have reverted without adding in the other information he takes out by reverting. 65.42.87.249 16:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

NOT a sandbox article!!

Err... my posting the NPOV thing on the medical marijuana site was NOT a test. That article is really biased toward marijuana legalization and I'd appreciate it if you would look over the article that I flagged. 66.125.228.62 02:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the history for dollar coin

Hey, I wanted to appologize for what I said earlier on the dollar coin history page. Sometimes I have mood swings when I have low blood sugar and can sometimes become irratated easily. I thought that you were just reverting without knowing the whole story. I am sorry for this.

--Kurthalomieu J. McCool 06:02, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Malcolm X

Hello Clawson. My recent changes to the Malcom X wiki were backed up with references from wiki articles. I am going to put my changes back. If you remove them again, I will file a complaint with wikipedia for your removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.104.48 (talk • contribs)

First of all, threats only go so far. Second, if you want to be a true contributor and not just a hack, then sign up for an account and become a regular. I too will be watching the Malcom X page for vandalism, since one or two people can't always be on to watch it. Davidpdx 9/13/05 10:35 UTC

Malcolm X / 3RR

Hi Clawson —

I'd like to just remind you that Wikipedia's three-revert rule doesn't only apply to those who are changing the article; it also applies to those changing it back [1]. I blocked User:70.23.104.48, as he had been explicitly warned against continuing the revert war. However, in future, please try to enlist the help of other editors to prevent yourself from violating 3RR when another user keeps changing an article. This isn't just pointless beaurocracy: it helps show a united voice and makes clear to the other editor that it's not just an argument between two people (though I realize his had been reverted by other editors earlier).

Don't worry too much about it now, but do keep it in mind in the future. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 17:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The user in question was, essentially, vandalising the article. He had been asked multiple times to stop, and at least one other editor (Jpgordon) had attempted to engage the user in dialogue as well. We were both unsuccessful, and since the user kept adding irrelevant information, I figured the standard "3RR does not apply to vandalism" guideline would apply, so I kept reverting his irrelevant edits.—chris.lawson (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

This simply isn't true. First, the information I added was directly relevant to the credibility of the source. You got involved in the revert-war simply because it amused you to do so. It was more exciting than anything on television that night. You might as well just admit it.

Anyway, looking down your talk page, it seems you enjoy getting into reversion wars with others, as well. I can only assume it amuses you. So now that you have had 24 hours to cool down and think things over, I have decided to put my changes back on the page. Hopefully this time you will take the time to read the reference and go to your favorite search engine and do a websearch on "Alex Haley and plagiarism".

I understood that that's what you felt, and that's why I said don't worry too much, but the vandalism clause is there for straightforward vandalism ("Wikipedia sUks and ur gAy"), and not for content disputes. The user may have been rude, and didn't know anything about discussing his edits instead of trying to force them through, but it was still a content dispute.

Absolutely - clawson you are disputing my content. You simply don't like the sound of the truth. It forces you have to rethink your own bigoted ideals, something you would rather not do. My facts are backed up with references, unlike yours. To be honest, I don't think you have any facts. You just like deleting stuff that doesn't resonate with you. You are the vandal, and I have made your activites known to Wikipedia.

Anyway, through email I've encouraged him to get a username and start making proper use of the talk page. Hopefully he'll start to realize that his current tactic won't get him anywhere, and start acting civilized. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 22:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Ray Nagin

Thanks for your support on the discussion page. --JimmyCrackedCorn 18:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Edit war

Wikipedia has a three-revert rule in order to avoid edit wars. Your edits to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, if continued, will place you in violation of this rule. You have been warned.24.146.19.164 00:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Talk Page Harassment

PLEASE stop filling my talk page with messages I have already read. It's ANNOYING and an abuse of the system to have needless messages popping up all over my screen. I'm not sure why you DUBIOUSLY claimed I ought not blank my talk page because it is needed by administrators, when it's perfectly well known to you, a frequent Wikipedia user, that, not only are your accusations of abuse completely unfounded, A PERFECT COPY OF EVERY EDIT MADE TO MY TALK PAGE IS SAVED< READY AND AVAILABLE TO ALL WHO WANT TO VIEW IT. I have already apologised for calling you without explicitly getting your permission prior to doing so, even though your public website lists your number along with an invitation to call you. Now please stop violating MY boundaries by harassing me via my talk page. 24.146.19.164 01:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I will once again request that you STOP harrassing me by entering needless, unwanted, repetative messages on my talk page. If you don't stop, I will have no choice but to contact an administrator to help sort things out. 24.146.19.164 01:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, I find it EXTREMELY suspicious that you apparently collaborate with 'Alkivar', who is a well known and admitted drug abuser. 24.146.19.164 01:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Because you continue to harrass me, I have requested we receieve mediation. PLEASE stop modifying my talk page, at least until the mediation process is complete. 24.146.19.164 01:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked User:24.146.19.164 for 24 hours. Is that address posted on his talk page correct, and if so, do you want me to remove it from the page history? --fvw * 02:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a correct address. It's publicly available elsewhere, but I don't appreciate his stalking. Please remove it from the page history, if you don't mind.—chris.lawson (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. --fvw * 02:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

3-revert rule / User:24.222.79.90

Heh, I was just going to report this guy, and noticed you'd already done it! Thanks, you saved me some hassle. --W.marsh 07:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

They're all after me

Yeah, comes with the territory of occasional RC patrol and other admin-like tasks, I guess. Wouldn't be the first time I had ruffled a few anon feathers in one evening. Note to self: see what can be done about developing some consensus on "BCE" in articles about religions other than Christianity.—chris.lawson (talk) 07:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and sorry about the edit conflict -- didn't know you'd get to it that fast! :)—chris.lawson (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

That's a tough one, you'll want to have a look at the evidence linked in the arbitration case between Jguk and slrubenstein .--fvw * 07:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

And you edit-conflicted again. This confrontational behaviour of yours has got to stop. :-P --fvw * 07:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Bogdanoff affair reversion

Thank you for your reply. The address of the Bogdanoff affair is :

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bogdanov_Affair&oldid=23847364

The problem is that this "rbj" is frenetically reverting the page in spite of the consensus of administrators and contributors. Rbj is falsifying the information by a twisted presentation of facts. He should be stopped urgently.

Thank you for yur help,

Igor

PS. It's strange you like aviation : I am a pilote myself (instructor) of planes and helicopters (Gazelle SA 341, Jet Ranger B2, Long Ranger, etc).

Thanks for your help on Atheism/Theism/Agnosticism

Thanks for your help against Adrigo's unilateral edits and reverts, I was beginning to despair and think I was alone caring about those articles. Even having another editor step in in his favor would have relieved me. Jules LT 20:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Open proxy?

70.150.2.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) just blanked User talk:70.124.106.230 twice, where I left a {test2} for adding a bunch of vulgarity to George W. Bush earlier. Looks like a proxy [2] to me.—chris.lawson (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Yup, blocked. --fvw * 00:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Same vandal is at it again, using 208.53.138.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to blank all these pages I've warned in the last 20 minutes.—chris.lawson (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Another open proxy, blocked. --fvw * 01:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Same vandal is at it again, using 208.53.138.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to blank all these pages I've warned in the last 20 minutes.—chris.lawson (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Gosh, annoying. Thanks for the talk page fixup. If this anonymous proxying keeps up I may have to dust off my proxyblocker bot... Blocked. --fvw * 01:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, if you don't mind I'm only going to respond to your open proxy reports on my own talk page from now on, at least for tonight. This constant copy and pasting is too much effort, and it's not like you'll miss anything should one response get lost in the hubbub. --fvw * 01:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandal whacking!

Oh, the fun I'm having making these turkeys go away for a day. Keep up the good work. You think these nincompoops would have something better to do on a Friday night! - Lucky 6.9 01:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. Much more satisfying. I swear, it drives me up the wall to see what some people do when they see the words, "anyone can edit." We persist. :) - Lucky 6.9 01:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Excellent idea. In fact, I was trying to think of a way to doll up the sig anyway. I'll hit that later tonight from the old homestead. - Lucky 6.9 01:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Recent vandals

OK, I'm watching. JeremyA (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism.

I am not vandalizing the Star Wars articles, I am fixing them. Mine are good faith edits. Thank you. Copperchair 05:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

If you keep messing with my talk page, then I'll have to mess with yours. Copperchair 12:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

And I am not "blanking my Talk page in order to hide legitimate criticism" as you put it. Since I am not vandalizing anything, I decided to remove those posts. My warning remains. Copperchair 13:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Then begin yourself a new post. Copperchair 08:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Until that happens, keep away from my talk page. Final warning. Copperchair 18:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I did explain I edited the pages following the movie's credits order. Copperchair 01:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy, Jr.

Thanks for your shrill condescension! -- James

By the way, "crackpot" is personally insulting! -- James

Clawson, if you go around purging pages of all references to the subject's possible political assassination, like Princess Diana and John Lennon, you'll find that your personal standard for a reliable source clashes with the standards of the community. You seem to think you can label a claim as "crackpot" and then take that label itself as proof that the source is not reliable. That's circular reasoning. Your opinion of a source doesn't make it reliable or unreliable. -- James

Impersonations

Thanks for the heads up, although I did ,in fact, post the comment on the Malcom X:Talk page. Refugee621 23:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Injoined User

The user user:Adrigo who has been editing articles related to theism, atheism, and agnosticism, is Donald Alford (AKA DotSix) who has been injoined by the Arb Committee from editing any page except the evidence page for his Arb Hearing [3] and his own user pages. Please revert EVERY edit he makes to any other page, including talk pages, with a simple comment that he is injoined. Please do not argue with him. Doing so just feeds a troll. Thank you. --Nate Ladd 01:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA

You need to reel it in and take a break, a lot of your recent comments are in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Agriculture 16:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

XF-11

Seeing your interest in the XF-11, I thought I'd share a tangential story I have that involves the plane.

In 1991 I was at a watch repair shop in Riverside, CA called Gell's. Mr. Gell and his shop had been around quite some time and he'd accumulated an impressive selection of vintage wristwatches. One that caught my eye was an wartime-era bulky pink gold Charles Nicolet swiss chronograph.

On its back an engraved message read to the effect that the watch is given to William Durkin by Howard Hughes with gratitude on something-something 1946. This was one of the gifts offered Durkin by Hughes for pulling him from the wreckage of the crashed XF-11.

Even though it was priced at $500 I passed as it wasn't a very pretty or functional watch. I've been kicking myself ever since. FeloniousMonk 18:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Wedge Antilles credit

OK, now I get what you were trying to say there, sorry for removing it. The Wookieepedian 13:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

for the info - I hadn't made that connection. Guettarda 13:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

That also explains in the Nagin bus AfD(s) why I topped the list of people JCC attacked. I was rather confused, since I had never interacted with him...I was wondering if JCC was a sockpuppet of someone else. But this makes a lot of sense. Guettarda 13:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Copperchair

I would suggest filing an RFC against him; if he's really that disruptive, it might be best. Make sure if you do so, though, that someone else who has dealt with him first-hand will sign with you, or it will be deleted. Ral 315 W_S 23:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you did anything wrong. But as a rule, reverting talk page blanking on an IP is one thing. Doing so on a registered user is another. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it seems general consensus. And I don't think mediation is always a punishment...it's clear that both of you are having a dispute, and could use having it worked out. Remember...counseling isn't just for the person in the wrong, it's for all parties involved. Such is the same with mediation. You're a good editor, keep up the good work- but for the sake of this argument, mutual mediation might be a good idea. Ral 315 W_S 04:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Not just for violating policy...but mediation can help cooler heads prevail (and if it doesn't, you can go to arbitration). Either way, I think it's more for Copperchair and the article itself than it is for you personally. Ral 315 W_S 04:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Ehrlich/Adrigo/DotSix

On User:Ehrlich being a sockpuppet of Adrige/DotSix, please see the latest addition in Dot6's case page/my statement. Jules LT 14:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

spolier tag

OK, I see what you mean. The Wookieepedian 16:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I've protected Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

I've protected the ESB article until some sort of consensus on how to credit Denis Lawson is established. This is an exceedingly silly edit war, and I'm sure some sort of decision agreeable to all can be made. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help with the Rfc. I appreciate it. HistoryBA 02:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

That proxy-bot of yours

I just noticed a posting on Talk:Ashida Kim that, through a couple links, took me here, which you might want your proxy-detection bot to take a look at.--chris.lawson 21:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

That's one of the lists I'm using, was there an open proxy on it that didn't get blocked in the bot run? Please let me know if there is, that could mean a bug (or it could have just been down during the scan of course). --fvw * 07:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I dunno. I just saw the post by those nutjobs and figured I'd give you a heads-up. It doesn't look like they've been able to do any large-scale disruption yet, so you've probably taken care of most of the ones on that list.--chris.lawson 11:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, you might wanna take a look at 213.140.21.235 (talk · contribs).--chris.lawson 11:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks like an innocent-and-pure-as-driven-snow italian cablemodem to me. --fvw * 12:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

My opinion = useless?

So, what makes my opinion useless? The fact that I don't agree with you? Yes, I don't want it to be on a set standard. But you know what? I'm not inclined follow your God damned opinions at all. If you don't want our suggestions, yes, you can go farming for anyone to agree with you and avoid anyone who does not. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Coins, coins, coins

I'm glad to see you're helping fill in the coin article gaps in Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. --Kurthalomieu J. McCool 04:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

A call for mediation

I've made a call for mediation in the many style disputes over the various Star Wars articles at Talk:Star Wars#Mediation. Your comment and participation would be appreciated. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello Clawson. A Man In Black has filed a mediation over Star Wars related articles and styles. I urge you to accept the case and follow the suggested injunction, to keep the temperature down. I see this is a pretty big case, so I've assigned Ed Poor, one of our best mediators, to look at it. The case is listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Dispute_over_style_in_Star_Wars_articles . I am waiting for Ed to accept, which he says he's gonna look over and accept tomorrow. Cheers! R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks you for joining the WikiProject:Numismatics. There is a to do list on the front page if you are looking for something write. Also, you can add this to your user page to show that you're a member of the project:

Which looks like this:

This user is a member of the Numismatics WikiProject, a WikiProject which aims to expand coverage of numismatics on Wikipedia. Please feel free to join.

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ]
15:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)