User talk:FloNight/archive 1

Hello FloNight/archive 1, 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Kentucky State Highways

FloNight!! Welcome to the Kentucky State Highways WikiProject. We're glad to have you aboard!! Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help get you started or if you have any questions. Best regards, >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist • E@} 03:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NO, NO, don't let her mess with kentucky highways! Her cars drive on the wrong side of the streets! See her diagram above!!!!! alteripse 00:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CIA leak VFD

Yeah, it should shortly be removed from VFD - dont let them keep it tagged for seven days - insist that the VFD be removed early (after it reaches 65 percent keep votes, etc.) You did the right thing in making the "fork" as the subarticle is in fact an separate event etc. (you know why). Some people dont understand the normal growth process is to fork when the main gets too long, as long as each fork is an important and distinct event. Good work/luck and happy editing. (happy holiday/long weekend too!). -St|eve 01:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CIA leak grand jury investigation

Is there any chance you could change the title? At moment, it looks like a list of keywords you would've used to do a search on google, and I believe that the article would benefit from having a title which is easier to remember. Bjelleklang - talk 19:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just wanted to put in that while I'm generally a 'merger' I like the fork you've created here. The main 'Plame affair' article is definitely getting oversized and messy. Having separate articles for the overall scandal with reactions, statements, predictions, et cetera and the actual investigation makes sense. Not sure about the naming dispute... the whole scandal doesn't have one distinctive name yet. Can always sort that out later. --CBDunkerson 20:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday greetings

Why, thank you! --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 04:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for watching over my user page. I appreciate the vigilance! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sorting med articles

Thanks! Yes, it is true; a lot of articles need better and more explicit sources. At the WP:MCOTW we've been adding references, but of course we only tackle one article at a time. You may want to tag articles with {{unreferenced}}, and you can add a comment to any of the articles listed at WP:MED. I look forward to working with you! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Pages

Hiya.

Thanks for adding the {{unreferenced}} tag to articles that are light on sources. Please note that the tag should be added to the article, where everyone can see it, rather than the talk page. Also, you've probably spotted this by now, but just in case: comments are usually added at the bottom of talk pages rather than the top. Thanks!

chocolateboy 11:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: David Hager

I added it to my watchlist yesterday, but haven't seen any activity so far. Don't worry too much about the vandalism—it's just a part of the way Wikipedia is. It's always a risk that a mirror will access an article while it's vandalized, but the chances are small and at worst, it'll be fixed at the next update. Not much else you can do! In any case, I'll keep it on my watchlist—another pair of eyes always helps! — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bluegrass stone wall

From Talk User:Pollinator

Hello! Every time I see the image of the bluegrass stone wall, I wonder where the picture was taken.

Do you remember the highway or where it was taken?--FloNight 16:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was just north of Harrodsburg in front of a prison. The prison staff had been restoring the old wall to as near to original as they could. Pollinator 21:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I know that location.--FloNight 01:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No English sources

It's fairly simple: there's a lot of us here who understand languages other than English, so there's no need to limit the acceptable sources to those in English. That would also make it impossible for us to write most articles about things in countries where English is not spoken. See Wikipedia:Babel. Zocky 17:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Food and Drug Act

I was working on Meat Inspection Act when I found that Food and Drug Act leads to the Canadian version. I see that your user page is linked to it and I suspect that you want the US version. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Garavito

References added (Entheta 00:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Erin Zhu

Please stop deleting easily verified content just because you find it distasteful. If you can prove it's inaccurate, then your deletions may be justified. FeloniousMonk 18:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minnie Dean

I've added my two main references. -- Vardion 03:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza elections

File:Voting box clipart.gif

Hi FloNight/archive 1: This is a quick note just to let you know that there's an election under way at Esperanza. If you'd like to become a candidate for Administrator General or the Advisory Council, just add your name here by 15 December 2005.

Voting begins at 12:00UTC on 16 December and all Esperanza members are encouraged to join in.

This message was delivered to all Esperanza members. If you do not wish to receive further messages, please contact Flcelloguy. Thank you.

➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 09:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seru Epenisa Cakobau

Hi there! Yes, I certainly will put in the references for this article. I'll have to do a google search (it's quite a while since I wrote most of it), and will also cite two books on which I based some of the information. Thank you for your interest! David Cannon 20:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a few references, will look for more. I'll have to get one of the books out from the library again to cite the page numbers; will do so as soon as possible. By the way, the "Fijian department" on Wikipedia is very short-staffed, so if you've got material to contribute, please go for it! David Cannon 21:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

News from Esperanza

Hello, fellow Esperanzians! This is just a friendly reminder that elections for Administrator General and two advisory council positions have just begun. Voting will last until Friday, December 30, so make sure you exercise your right to vote! Also, I'm pleased to announce the creation of the Esperanza mailing list. I urge all members to join; see Wikipedia:Esperanza/Contact for more information. All you need to do is email me and I will activate your account. This will be a great way to relax, stay in touch, and hear important announcements. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?)

This message was delivered to all Esperanza members by our acting messenger, Redvers. If you do not wish to receive further messages, please list yourself at WP:ESP/S. Thanks.

Re: RfC

Wow—quite a tricky situation. I'll take a closer look, but this issue may prove to be too complex for me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

I've named you as an involved party in User:FCYTravis' Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#WebEx_and_Min_Zhu as you were an active participant on the relevant articles, acting on his crew's behalf in your edits. FeloniousMonk 06:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu/Workshop. Fred Bauder 01:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rocancourt and others

Thanks for a note about Rocancourt and Spillman. I based both articles on multiple sources, some of which I (and Google) could not find any more. I included those I did find. As for Marthe Hanau, all my original references seem to be gone. There is a book about her, but I haven't read it. Keep up the good work - Skysmith 14:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Murphy (counterfeiter)

Hello, Could you add sources for the article Catherine Murphy (counterfeiter)? --FloNight 13:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - I separated out these words to dab the Catherine Murphy article so I'm no expert. There is nothing in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. The only thing I could find is one website. There are some books on capital punishment in the UK so I will try to get hold and find a better reference. Cutler 20:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William T. Anderson

Dear Flo: Hi! First, I love that drawing of the cars driving around on your page. Secondly, thank you for your attention on the William T. Anderson page I originated.

I did as you told me. The page was done, I believe, during the time that wikipedia didn't require sources on their articles. I forgot about it, and left it without a source. Once again, thanks for bringing it to my attention!!!

I hope we can talk some more soon! God bless you!

Sincerely yours, Antonio Crazy Ol Martin

Le pox de poullet

It's nice to have such good company at chickenpox! - Nunh-huh 03:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nurse Category

Hi Flonight, there's a new category Category:Nurse Wikipedians of which you may be interested in listing yourself. Best! Maltmomma ^(chat) 20:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you added yourself. Here's another place you may want to add your name. [1] I'm the only one there! :) BTW, I like your name! Maltmomma ^(chat) 16:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petition on Bullying in Wikipedia

Hi FloNight. I have compiled a petition to send to Mr. Wales with respect to my views on bullying on Wikipedia, which I think is a very grave problem on Wikipedia that Mr. Wales needs to address: User:Benapgar/Bullying. Please sign it if you agree, and if you can think of other people who might agree please let them know about it too. --Ben 01:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things poeple wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 12:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cuckold removal

Good judgement on moving it. I feel sorry for the poor guy as he makes a pretty obvious story. I spent the last couple of hours tracking down the paper and its references. I was completely unfamiliar with the stuff in the psych literature on this. It's interesting and I will put a paragraph on this topic in the puberty article. alteripse 00:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Esperanzial note

As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.

In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: {{EA-welcome}} (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)

Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.

Moronobu

Hi, Got a couple of refs for Moronobu Hishikawa. Didn't want to remove your tag in case you had different expectations. Haiduc 04:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bacchá

Idem for the Bacchá article. Haiduc 04:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes/Zhu

The article, I'd think. Let's be just a little circumspect about all of it's claims though, as it is a bit of a puff piece, something Forbes is known for. FeloniousMonk 19:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgidas

It's a little peculiar to me that an article that cites Plutarch and Plato should be characterized as unreferenced! That was in Sept 2003 and I am afraid I don't have my Greek histories lying about anymore, but I'd be happy to try and find some additional references. However, I note that though much of what I wrote 2-3 years ago is intact, a "Category:Pederasty" category has been added. I certainly will not be editing the article as long at that incorrect tag remains: the Theban Band contained pairs of equal lovers, not necessarily the stereotypical adult/child pairs. One reference would be "The Theban Sacred Band," The Ancient World XXIII.2 (1992) 3-19, but I have not consulted it. - Outerlimits 01:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Apology

No problem. :) Johnleemk | Talk 12:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the help. I had a previous username, Charlesmartel, but all i did with that one was write Rock of Monaco, a paragraph or two in icelandic history, and a few little expansions.

Hiya

Quoting myself from my above comment: "I just think there's an issue brewing here that's going to come to the fore sooner or later, but I'm not certain yet how to characterize it."

Well, it might be breaking: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war.

--DanielCD 16:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I am quite happy to not be involved. I cannot imagine what possessed him to do this, but then again, it occurred to me why I do see it. I now firmly believe we have been cultivating somewhat of a "safe zone", where these people feel secure. Unfortunately -- and this was what I was sensing -- despite it's fairness, someone was sooner or later bound to step a little too far. Still, in itself, Paroxysm's act was not in any way an act of trolling, but was indeed a very brave and bold thing to do. Ill-advised, ridiculous, baffling...yes all that too, but...trolling...absolutely ludicrous. After the fact (yea, right!), it's much more clear.

Still, despite my most severe disagreement with his actions, my integrity demanded that my opinion regarding Paroxysm's intentions be stated, regardless of his views of himself or others' views of him, and so I left a comment there as an univolved party solely in regards to his intentions. I tried to make that as explicit as possible that I don't want to be involved further than that. But s**t tends to stick, so we'll see what happens.

I think there is still a fork in the road Wikipeida has yet to hit, and now it has crystallized. I believe now that the issues will involve two factors: 1) how Wikipedia handles this "pedophile" controversy (as well as the likely perceived necessity of scapegoating), and 2) issues surrounding statements such as this: "...he happens to be new and powerless. The other involved participants are all relatively powerful users."

These are two powerful ideas being handled somewhat carelessly, and this is my prime reason for wanting to clean up this area. I hope our "powerhouses" have enough insight and foresight to see Wikipedia through its next growing stage. We'll see. --DanielCD 17:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a party to this in some way? I am just curious as to what you mean here; you mean another case? And if there's anything going on elsewhere, email or otherwise,...well, I'm not too appreciative of the fact that I'm not tied up in it.

Now I will find a suitable piece of wood, and do my knocking. --DanielCD 18:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that response. I find your responses soothing, and enjoy returning to your userpage to see the dove picture, as it really has a calming, contenment-inducing effect. (Be careful, it might get snatched and show up on one of my pages!) But I chose to leave it here, since seeing it too much might dilute its value.

As to being an administrator: I am frankly surprised you are not one! When the vote comes up, please let me know, as I will certainly champion your cause.

And another thing, I have many many bad days as well. We all do, and I think (recall my statements above...) many others as well. I am finding it, though, easier to deal with, as I now brace myself with any given "controversial" edit that an offended person may give a nasty first response. Then I tell myself, let go and give them some space: Treat the person as a prince/princess until their third response, then judge, as I know I often want to react the same way when someone tinkers with my cherished material. It's human. --DanielCD 21:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus went public with his project a bit prematurely. I am withdrawing from that and I am ceasing my work on the related articles (including the category sorting). I expect that without my coordiation, "P" will return to a quagmire, but I don't care at this point. My interests were beginning to turn anyway, and I think this is a chance to make a clean break and start some new projects. I'm here to edit articles, not engage in petty bickering. I have many other areas of interest to pursue. However, I am going to defend Herostratus and Parox in regard to their intentions, but hopefully this will all cool down soon.

I found a Category:Anti-Semitic people that might have similar concerns to the sexuality articles. How can you be sure someone fits? But I ain't openin' that can o' worms. See ya round. --DanielCD 13:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok. Just royally confused. See the action here. Don't quite know what to think. Just coolin' my heels now. Thanks for the note.

Feelin' like a bit of a peach pit at the moment. --DanielCD 04:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda feel like Cassandra. But I know I'm just soothing myself with that thought to hide from the fact I seriously put my foot in my mouth. My tail is tucked between my legs right now, but I'll bounce back. --DanielCD 04:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happens a lot around this place lately ; o You're in good company. Everyone is nutty these days! --FloNight 04:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh start

I think your comment was well put. Lemme read more. --DanielCD 01:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment. I'm gonna try to help these football guys sort out their little row. It's nice that someone sees me as an "experienced" administrator. After all this, that badge might be somewhat appropriate. I don't wanna say too much right now as I haven't read it all and wnt to let it sink in a bit. I long to end discussion edits and get back to actually working on articles. --DanielCD 01:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it is obvious to you that I'm not a moralizer!

Puuleeeezze ... ;-)) --DanielCD 02:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I added the references to the Graham Rix article, I read them!

Wow. I certainly wish more people did that! --DanielCD 02:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veterans with disputed status is also something of questionable encyclopedic nature. You'd think mention in the articles would be enough. --DanielCD 14:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to find the article. I see, however, that UninvitedCompany has deleted it. He has a history of deleting things way too quickly (he recently deleted an article within ten minutes of creation...that I was working on. I did some research and came back with info on the clipboard, and, voila...no article! If an anon was working it, I might see a case, but an administrator?) I'll try to find it so I can see what's up. --DanielCD 15:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sensing that a bomb of some sort is about to go off. --DanielCD 4 January 2006 Ya gatta love it. --DanielCD 22:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Man, Wiki running slow today. --DanielCD 21:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Stress

No, not really. I'm just a bit upset to find I'm probably responsible for Radiant's departure. [2] Johnleemk | Talk 12:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T&T at the World Cup

Thanks for your message a few days ago. I meant to get back to you, but somehow it never happened. I'm glad you'll be cheering them on. I wish I could make the trip to Germany. Hopefully it'll take less than 32 years for them to get back to the World Cup and I'll see them at one of the future ones. All the best - Guettarda 18:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Social Security

Thanks for the message and the information. Traverlaw 14:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you
Hello FloNight, and thank you for your support in my request for adminship! It passed with a final count of 63/4/3. I am honoured by the community support and pledge to serve the project as best as I can. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 17:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Coulter

More category trivia for your entertainment. Here, someone added her to cats: persecution, racism and prejudice and discrimination over her using the word "raghead". I left a note about 'do no harm', but it does seem category misuse (or attempted misuse) is more widespread than I suspected. BUt I could be wrong... Not that there's a fire or anything; this note is just for fun (as Ann can be good for some laughs, no matter what side of the political fence you are on). --DanielCD 18:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Coulter is quite a character. She spoke at my daughter's college last year. She said in her talk that the children of conservatives are smarter than the children of liberals. I heard the story from one of my daughter liberal friends. Of course, he was livid! He would have categorized her with those tags and worse! Precisely the reaction that Ms. Coulter desires, I imagine. : ) Keeps those requests for talks coming in. We need to keep an eye out for this stuff to keep it from spreading to less notables. That is where WP could really get in trouble. FloNight ^talk

00:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What up

Can I just say your personal page in lovely! It reminds me of my auntie's house. I'm 19 and English and me page is a mess, like a 19 yearolds page should be, but you are clearly houseproud (or whatever the equivalent is). Just felt like telling you.--Crestville 20:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Crestville : ) How sweet! I do it to get rid of stress. Whenever another editor snarls at me, I decorate my user page instead of snarling back. FloNight ^talk

22:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Esperanzial note...

Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,
--Cel es tianpower ^háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

Unfortunately

Unfortunately. Alas, it's now off my watchlist. --DanielCD 03:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you believe I'm in the kindness campaign? I thought joining it would wear away some of the crusty edges.

I'm putting this above so as not to be terribly obvious. But after thinking, I removed the template at the deletion debate. I don't think it's something to sling into the fray if it's not needed. It can make a vote look like something it's not.

Also, just FYI. People respect you and your opinions. You have a charisma that I fail to achieve (at least not before two years of experience) and you are definitely Admin material. Is anyone looking into this? --DanielCD 03:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't see any reason for the warning box. The discussion is much more civil and thoughtful than the average Afd. Regarding Admim, thank you for suggesting it. If nominated I would accept. Originally, I was waiting for arb case to end to avoid any questions. But, I'm getting tired of waiting. I'm not a party that is going to get sanctioned or anything. FloNight ^talk

03:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RfA. It was successful and I hope to be a good administrator. Essexmutant 11:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

File:Plunger 250x410.jpg

Thanks for taking the time to vote in my RfA, which passed with a final vote of 54/2/1 despite my obvious inadequacy for the job. I'll do my level best to use the mop and bucket — or, as I said in my RfA, plunger — responsibly. Of course, in the best tradition of politicans everywhere, I've already broken a campaign promise (I blocked a vandal last night despite having said "I don't anticipate using the blocking tool very often"). Nevertheless, I'll try not to let the unbridled power corrupt me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Valentines Day!

♥ Happy Valentines Day! ♥

May your days be filled with Wikilove!

- DanielCD

About the Newbie Tag

My concerns with the debate are/were that people were being encouraged to come for the wrong reasons. Albeit more votes w/o any reasoning were cast on the delete side and, even though I stand in favor of deletion, I felt that anyone coming at the last minute, and the rest of us (for that matter), should remember the principle behind deletion discussion. Thats basically my reasoning, I mean look at the last 2 votes, One of them simply voted, no reasoning, nothing... I feared that that sort of thing could happen last minute and incite controversy and bitterness. I see no harm in placing a tag at the top to remind us that WP:NOT a democracy. That answer your questions? Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 01:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all this just looks odd, especially here at the last minute. I just smell something funny. I don't think reasons are demanded, nor are they reason to place a template. However, giving dumb reasons, that's a problem. But there's not a lot of that going on either. --DanielCD 02:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We really need chat for some of these discussions. This message wait-and-run stuff is just driving me mad. --DanielCD 03:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Especially when I have to hunt for your messages like easter eggs : ) FloNight ^talk

03:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I get a bit cross when I'm confused (in case you couldn't tell...) but I think Dragoonmac's comments has helped me see things a bit differently. The debate/issue at the ped delete has no one to coordinate/champion the cause, and I'm not up to it at this point. That's why I think it's going to die if no one steps up. But I'm also now not sure this vote means anything. It's served its purpose, that of showing what we need to do to proceed: clarify what the project would be about, goals, and above all, a title or place for it. All the deletion review can do is resurrect it with the same title. I wish I could stop being curious and leave well enough alone. Butm hey, it's me. I've always had a tendancy to step into leadership vacuums and take charge, but I don't want that here. It will be interesting to see what happens when the vote is over.

Do you know people are still fighting to resurrect the deletion review for Brian Peppers again on the admin. noticeboard (#7!!) ? If you really want some prepping for admin duty, watch those Admin notice pages. --DanielCD 21:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started keeping up with the admin noticeboard because Guy, FCYTravis and FM (parties in my arb comm case) post there. It can be pretty entertaining watching the adm go off on each other!

FCYTravis is arguing hard against Brian Pepper article. I need to leave a message on his user page thanking him. I'll help with the PP. We need to re-name it. The goals are fine. We can expand them as needed. FloNight ^talk 21:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get a little goofy if I've been on my feet most of the day and stay up too late. ;-). --DanielCD 14:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The silliness is a nice. : ) But, I need to be more discrete about my bad habits. FloNight ^talk 14:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We all do. Here's another pearl: Sissy baby. --DanielCD 14:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!!!

I appreciate all the great work you are doing in welcoming people into the wikicommunity. I believe this is a very important part of letting people know about our culture here thus improving the quality of wikipedia. Kukini 07:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Question

Aside from slinging silly comments back and forth, perhaps we can put our minds together and help fill in some Wiki-knowledge gaps. I hope you don't mind if I use you as a sounding-board for issues I'm not certain what to do with from time-to-time, as perhaps it can help us both learn.

I'm looking at Carpal tunnel syndrome and it seems like there's a lot of borderline, if not outright, medical advice being given (it seems there's a lot of comments on the talk page from someone with an MD after their name...someone running a "Wikiclinic"?). But it seems to me there could be potential liability issues. I just thought I'd bounce that off of you and see what you thought. But there's no fire, so don't let it take you away from more pressing matters.

BTW, I think this would be an excellent candidate for the Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. --DanielCD 20:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've nominated it at the AID.

Good idea. Could use some work, for sure. Saw that you did some copyediting. Your right it needs sources. When I first came to WP, I was shocked that so many medical articles had no sources. Everyone writing a medical article knows better. Some medical journal articles have reference lists that are practically as long as the article. --FloNight 01:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it's been cited by the Houston Chronicle...Gaawd..!! --DanielCD 02:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here ya go: Criticisms of sexual behavior. Hot off the press. --DanielCD 04:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Award

I'm trying to choose an award for Herostratus and his nothing-less-than herculean efforts. Would you like to joint award it with me? --DanielCD 01:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure--FloNight 01:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silly category

I wished Mark hadn't removed the VP-shooting category so quickly. There's a lot of folks who want to cross-reference Cheney & Burr, and the category was the compromise about a half-dozen of us reached. I'm afraid that without this category, those who want the cross reference are simply going to add the reference back into the Burr and Hamilton-Burr articles proper (as they have been doing over and over again these past few days). Can you humor them for awhile and store the category? (or weigh in and explain why the articles about this historic figures shouldn't be defaced with unrelated modern references. God knows we've tried... Rklawton 02:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm? Where has this been discussed? I need to read up on it. I can see your point, a little. But, small categories... I don't know. FloNight ^talk 03:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Aaron Burr's talk pages. I think you'll also find some discussion in the Hamilton-Burr talk pages, too. The arguements boil down to a few people who think a reference to Cheney is appropriate within the Burr articles (but can't really explain why) and the rest of us who don't. The categories were a compromise. In the end, I agree that the Burr/Hamilton articles don't need a reference to Cheney, but I object (mildly in this case) to deletions made without first considering related talk pages. Rklawton 04:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

articles about historic figures shouldn't be defaced with unrelated modern references

This should be chisled in stone somewhere. I can only say one thing: Amen. --DanielCD 04:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steelbeard1 has added the reference back in to the Aaron Burr article. It might help if you explained your reasoning to him, though he seems pretty single minded about it. Rklawton 04:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rklawton, I just read the discussions. I'll leave a comment. I agree, no text about Cheney in these articles. FloNight ^talk 04:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks!

Thank you!
Hello FloNight/archive 1, and thank you for your support in my request for adminship! It passed with a final count of 98/2/0. If there is anything I can do to help you, please leave me a message on my talk page! -- xaosflux ^Talk

Wikiproject Child sexual abuse

Hi, Flonight. I have a concern about naming a Wikiproject something like this. But I thought I would express it here rather than on the discussion page, since we're not really at the point of publicly debating the merits of different names yet. Here's what my argument will probably be, if it comes to that:

Remember that Jim will be asked who is writing the articles for "Project Child Sexual Abuse." After Jim replies that anyone can edit an article on Wikipedia, the reporter will say, "So child molesters [reporter pauses for dramatic effect] could be determining what your encyclopedia ~~which is available for children to read,~~ says about child sexual abuse?"

Anyway, just giving you a heads-up as to my thoughts. THanks. :-) Joey Q. McCartney 07:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I mainly want to figure out whether this concern is valid or not. The last thing I want to do is dissuade you from defending a good suggestion. If you have any thoughts about it, feel free to let me know. You're probably not ignoring me, but I have no life, so I tend to sit waiting for a response, lol. Joey Q. McCartney 18:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello : ) I'm not ignoring you. I have several other things to deal with first. Consider it saving the best til last. ; ) FloNight ^talk 19:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture popups

Hi. I've noticed you've copied the installation script for Picture Popups to your monobook.js, but I don't think it can work the way you have it now. You at least need a newline before "document.write" to make it work. Zocky | picture popups 07:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you very much for your support during my recent Admin election, I appreciate the trust that you have put in me. Please contact me if you have any questions, comments or concerns regarding my work as an admin.

Kind Regards, Elf-friend 09:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophiia project and RfA

Hmmm. I'm guessing Ineloquent didn't mean to remove your comments; it could just be sloppiness (maybe there was an edit conflict?)

In any case, I don't think engaging with this discussion will do you any harm in RfA terms. Taking part in discussions about difficult situations is a Good Thing. Looking through your contributions I think you would stand a good chance of succeding on an RfA. I think the amount of community participation across areas like ArbCom pages, User talk pages, welcoming, and various deletion debates would be in your favour, as would your very friendly manner and very strong use of edit summaries. I think taking part in some more AfDs and doing some more Recent Changes patrol (much easier now you have popups ;-) ) would round off your contributions and make you the kind of extremely strong candidate who sails through an RfA. Hope this helps! The Land 01:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was an accident. Sorry. // paroxysm (n) 03:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops

:I am very opposed to Pedophilia NPOV.

I'm sorry, I've made jokes (to you) about your other comments in this regard thinking (for some odd reason) you were kidding (I wasn't really thinking). Hope I didn't do anything confusing. Your perspective is a little more clear now though. I don't know where the line is to be drawn, but I don't think I can stomach that material any more. At least not right now. I'll be a janitor and tidy things up though from time to time and make sure peace is kept, etc. I still need to get an award together for "H". --DanielCD 01:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly don't remember you saying anything annoying re NPO. I don't think you did. I'm very free speech, so I think pedophiles have the right to say whatever. But, not at WP. WP needs to aggressively managage this problem. WP is not a forum to debate childlove. WP is not a public message board or sex offender registery. (Where have I heard that before?) Writing the articles (deciding content) is just part of the solution. The other is managing the people that help write them. IMO, Jimbo needs to get involved. Set some guidelines for appropriate ways to interact with pov-pushing indiviuals and outside groups. Enough about that...

Did you pick an award yet? FloNight ^talk 01:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How bouts this? Lemme get the formatting right. It's a little big... ?

Well done!

Done? Move it over? --DanielCD 02:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looks good. Move it. --FloNight 02:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now... we wait. lol. --DanielCD 02:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you working on tonight? I need to pick some articles to delete. Want to help? --FloNight 02:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. I'm thinking about a Wikibreak for the rest of the evening while my "extra-Wiki" life still exists.

Try Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. Looks like a listing of the book's contents. I wouldn't mind seeing that one go to free up the title for better endeavors. --DanielCD 02:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC) I'll look at it. Go have a life... I still can't decide if I'm going to make comments on new arb comm case Kim B bought against Fel. Monk., Guett., Jim, among others. --FloNight 02:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible deletion material: Veterans with disputed status. --DanielCD 14:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll check it out. I think I'm going to PROD the other one. My life on WP is getting very complex. I want to participate in PP, but soon will need to focus on Webex and Min Zhu articles. And maybe a new Arb comm case, too. After I do some more Afd and re-read the Admin page, I might be ready to launch my nomination for admin. What are you up to today? --FloNight 15:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thx!

Hi FloNight, thank you for the barnstar! I do like it... I'm not I deserve it yet but I'll try to be worthy of it. Herostratus 08:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jayne Vercoe, etc

Thanks for suggesting the references on my articles - I definitely plan to add some references to not just those articles but the several others I've created as well. I'll hopefully get to this shortly! --SilverWings 09:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I didn't get to this as quickly as you had evidently hoped, and you went and did it yourself. My reason for delay was that I wanted to give not just online references (which disappear after a while, since they are mainly from online news sources) but print references also, and I needed some time to dig those up again. I've added the ones I have for now, but you may rest assured there will be more coming - just not quickly! But thanks for your help in the interim... --SilverWings 10:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KY

Hello, nice to see other Kentuckian Wikipedians here, are you a native? See you around in the meantime. Эйрон Кинни 17:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, nevertheless. See you around, too. Эйрон Кинни 02:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

jimbo involvement

Saw your comment above. Maybe Herostratus could ask Jimbo to (1) follow the debate and (2) give input or (3) decide on a name. Joey Q. McCartney 03:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got your note. Thanks. Yes, I'd be interested in seeing the email. I mentioned Herostratus since I assume he's been involved with the project the longest and seems to be the closest thing the project has to an owner or leader. Joey Q. McCartney

Your note

As for Veterans with disputed status, I've been trying to keep references to people out if it, as I don't think it should cross that line or people will misuse it. You can see the edits I've made in the history.

Do you know about Perverted-Justice.com? I think their goals are good, but I don't think the people running it are even-minded enough to keep it from potential misuse. Frankly, anyone stupid enough to go into a chat room and believe anyone there is who or what they say they are should be slapped good. But there's also judgements to be made, and potential misuse, and the people who run the site are more interested in looking good than doing what's right. That means the potential is even wider. What if one of these men is a role-playing fetishist and believes the person to be an adult playing a role and is just playing along? What if someone says something as a joke and words it oddly (aren't we familiar with this?) not quite saying what they meant, and ends up losing their job/family? What's to prevent these people from fabricating such things about people they don't like for whatever reason?

There's a place for it, but without regulation, it's got some bad potential. Rhetoric and feet-stamping usually cover this fact up, as well as the fact people want to ignore it and enjoy having people to kick while they are down. They also publish deliberately wrong information, such as the people they "catch" being pedophiles, when it's more likely most of them are not, among other misleading information. I could go on. This was part of the reason I became involved with that issue, as the public perception thinks it has the right to center stage. I disagree; the truth deserves it. This gets into the NPOV issue you have regarding that material, which I am quite interested in, as well as the neccessary attention that must be paid to Wikipeida's integrity. I agree to an extent, but there is still such care to be taken... My opinions get into the undefined here and I'm interested to explore the ideas.

I don't care about all the advocacy crap, that's mainly a farce as far as I'm concerned*, but when I see people deliberately spreading misinformation about this devistating mental ailment, it does no one any good, and at this point "showiness" and looking good become more important than being objective. PeeJ is drawing attention away from areas that need much more attention, and where many many more children are being devistated, and why?, because their "showy" presentation is what attracts public attention, and it's worth more to them than the innocence of my children.

The Shaq thing similar? Unfortunately this aspect of public vigilance is being abused to the point that it may become an ineffective tool for protecting our children. Vigiliance is one thing, but vigilantiism and ego-stroking is another. People just don't get it that there's a big difference between assertive and aggressive. But aggressive is more fun, looks better, and wins more votes.

Purely my opinion. What do you think?

Some "advocacy" sites, or rather at least one I've seen, is completely legit in its concerns, and unassailable in it's goals. Still, it's attacked as a "[Insert rhetorical stock ped. criticism here]." I'll look for the link. --DanielCD 18:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be so long-winded, and know none of this is criticism of you or anything you've said. Just stuff that builds up, and your page is a good teapot to tempest in ;). I just have some definite opinions on these issues, which is why I was getting involved. But I'm not willing to fight the politics of it right now. --DanielCD 18:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition: don't any clever neanderthals come by here and take snipes, as this is written for Flo and not meant for public debate at this time. --DanielCD 18:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a lot of good points. We are walking a tightrope dealing with this issue. Your comments, and many of those on the project page, show a strong desire to get this right. I think we will, if we take a little bit more time to frame the issues. FloNight ^talk 18:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know about Perverted-Justice.com. They are the main reason I don't go into #wikipedia. Those conversations, intermixed with each other, could be problematic. You have no idea who you are talking to in there. Now, you probably think I'm paranoid! : ) Chat is good, but I like to know who I'm talking with. FloNight ^talk 19:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might consider researching the (actual, undigested) Rind et al. study and giving some hard-core input on that. I say this because I may be able to integrate it with the real-life project I'm working on, which is more centered on trauma/dissociation issues. We'll see. --DanielCD 19:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.pedfoundation.org/about/principles.html

Unfortunately I think the site's been wiped out. Which is pure s**t. There's no side of any issue on which there isn't some sentiment of legitimacy, and to delete sites like this that are/were trying to establish communication between people... don't even get me started. But unfortunately whatever server was hosting it deleted it, probably without having even read it. --DanielCD 19:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it was deliberately fixed so child filters would catch it to ensure only adults would access it. What could have possibly been there that I'm not able to think for myself enough to see? Do I need that server to tell whether I'm capable of judging such material for myself? Any adult? --DanielCD 19:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for chatting... frankly, I never chat. Last time I chatted was about three months ago, and it was on a help chat with technicians from my ISP helping me to fix an email bug.

I think what's sparked this is: I think you're the first person who has brought up the question of POV/NPOV in such a way, and done so in good faith. --DanielCD 19:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potential deletion stuff

Nirvana and Dzogchen Could easily be merged to something else? --DanielCD 04:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GUESS WHO's BACK?? -----> Brian Peppers --DanielCD 05:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offer for cite assistance

Thanks for the offer. Is there a page somewhere detailing how to cite the "common sources" such as websites and textbooks? --Rlax

Hmm, this is proving to be more difficult than I initially anticipated. It is a fairly common term in immunology and epidemiology, at least in the academic community. I assumed cdc.gov/NIH/etc would have plenty on it. However, I cannot seem to find any "reputable" pages that define/discuss it. Instead, a number of hospital/university websites use it in passing (in reference to OPV). Should I reference these pages even though they barely devote 2 sentences out of an entire article to it? Rlax 03:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Peppers

Did you see Brian Peppers? Please tell me what you think. --DanielCD 05:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading it now. --FloNight 05:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme a yea or nea. --DanielCD 05:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for your vote

My request for adminship passed with a final result of 78/2/0. Hopefully I will live up to everyone's expectations. Please ask if I can ever help out with anything in the future.
Martyman - 09:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natural selection is Science Collab of the Week

You voted for Natural selection and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Month!
Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article.

Samsara _contrib ^talk 11:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Break

I'm off for a break, one I obviously need. Thanks for your gentle support, as well as that of the other guys. It is appreciated.

My new flagship quote, to help me keep perspective:

"Care about what you write and articles you love, but be careful about caring for Wikipedia as a whole. It's like trying to feed the world; in the end it will only break your heart."

--DanielCD 15:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an email. Didn't know if you had an email address set or not. Don't think you have to reply. I'll understand if you don't. --FloNight 15:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment at Talk:Brian Peppers that sums up the reasoning behind my actions, my view of the situation, and a general implication of the wider problems at hand. There is going to have to be a major overhaul of the system because the quaint cottage bureaucracy of the past is falling to pieces as I see it. --DanielCD 16:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Growing pains for sure. --FloNight 16:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connecting tubule

Hello. I noticed that you are a participant in the WikiProject Preclinical Medicine. The article Connecting tubule has been nominated for deletion. As this is an anatomical subject I was hoping to get somebody within the project to adopt the article for expansion. I could find no way to add the article to this project. I hope you or your fellow particpants would consider adopting this article to love. James084 22:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

neoplatonism & gnosticism

Cool. But um I really am at a wall as to how to continue. I really need to tie the book in with the topic as a base, but am in a rut as to how. Hey any help would be most appreciated. I have started too much and don't have the personal time. LoveMonkey 04:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

la sequel

I'll keep working on. I'm going to move all the text to the top. And finding the best format for the table of contents. The sentence you added about it being the turning point declares why it is encyclopedic. I'm going to work on it a little more before I take the tag off. The tag gives the article some protection from being WP:SPEEDY deleted or put up for WP:AFD deletion. FloNight talk 06:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful. Thank You. LoveMonkey 14:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you two are hitting it off. --DanielCD 18:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediating. I was just trying to keep Plotinus from being ripped to shreads or bloated beyond recognition.

At the Noeplatonism & Gnosticism article, deletion was just a suggestion. No fires. -DanielCD 01:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:132.241.245.49 is slapping sexuality/crime categories all over the freaking place. --DanielCD 01:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have an Category:American criminals?

I don't see anything to get immediately alarmed about. I can handle that as part of the Polinus baby I inherited from Katefan (is that right? whatevah).

Frankly I'm more concerned about that damn anon adding categories all over. It's not a nice feeling to know we spend such time debating things, then some Lala comes along and just thinks his/her judgement trumps us all. --DanielCD 01:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I finally, reluctantly, blocked that anon. I hate having to do that. I don't like using any of the admin tools unless absolutely needed (except the rollback function: when reverting obvious vandals on recent changes patrol that can be kinda fun). I was going to ask another admin to do the blocking because he made me a little angry. But then he started going through my edit history (sic) and reverting my recent edits (good grief the wild west never ends around here). I was watching his edit history and caught that quick.

And to be accused of being on a power trip is hard to swallow. Fortunately two other admins have reviewed and oked my action. I wonder... if I'm guilty of anything, it's not being power happy, it's guilty of caring too much. I'm starting to really ask myself why I care so much. I only wanted to be on a short time to check messages, etc. but I saw that and couldn't walk away from it.

Anyway the fireworks over Brian Peppers are now less than a fading coal, at least on my side of the field. Even us grown men can be so adolescent with our tempers... BUt lack of nonverbal communication (facial expression, voice tone, etc.) can create an impersonal feel similar to that which causes road rage. I bet there may even be an article on "Internet rage"... Beat ya to it! --DanielCD 04:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

didn't quite find it. Closest I came was Bad Day. --DanielCD 04:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the edits by that anon? If so, just remove any he placed, as I think it's been established he wasn't acting with the purest of motives. I asked him to stop for just this reason; now someone has to review all that crap and it's a waste of time.

The policies simply can't keep up with this. We need more policies now dealing with category addition, perhaps even a review request before adding certain categories. It will be quite fascinating to see how all of this ends up. Kind of interesting to be in the midst of such an innovative social experiment. What will it look like in 20 years? --DanielCD 05:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also: I looked for your email. You send one? --DanielCD 05:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are going to have to integrate some kind of chat feature sooner or later. This snail-ish communication with messages just sucks and leaves so much open to misinterpretation. --DanielCD 05:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be on there. Let me send you a test email. Other than that, I'm getting off the merry-go-round for this evening. Good night. --DanielCD 05:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for you gentle efforts at trying to make peace when us puriles go at it. I'd offer you some barnstar or other silly bauble for you userpage, but I think sincerety of a kind thank you is worth more than 100 of those. They are overused anyway. But thanks. Not only myself, but many people in this community, respect you. After this Brian Peppers thing is finished for good (and burned and buried with the ashed re-burned), I intend to nominate you for adminship if no one else does and if you want it. --DanielCD 05:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted BY JIMBO HIMSELF! --> Brian Peppers

Well, no matter what happens, I'm formally retiring from the Brian Peppers Comedy Hour. No more for me. --DanielCD 05:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Pritt

You just removed an AfD, seeing the issues people seem to have with the article, its a worthwile process, not sure if you just saw too many edits there. Tawker 07:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I added the AfD back. Tawker 08:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU

Hi! Thanks for the advice, i'd try to do my best here.PeLo 20:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Pelo[reply]

Userboxes

Hey, since I'm here so much, perhaps I should just divide your page in two and move in (LOL).

Check this one out:

Snap!

This user is a Snapper. If you snap at him, he might just snap back. So be a sweetie and you B OK.

Terse, but balanced. I think userboxes have a place as far as communicating interests and personal personality aspects that may be important in dealing with that person. But I cant stomach people using them as potential/religious etc. aggrivations. Still that's just MHO, so one surfing by get their panties in a wad please...

I don't have a degree in philosophy, but I am well-versed in it. Nietzsche is my speciality. The Neoplatonists are kinda far out. Much of their material is quite idiosyncratic, as many use multiple terms of their own invention to describe very abstract things. Complicating the matter, many use the same words, and mean different things. I wrote much of Iamblichus of Chalcis, and I am quite familiar with him and Theurgy, but not Plotinus directly. That's what brought me to that article; I wanted to brush up on him. But I took over from Katefan, with her blessing, and when I did, it became my responsibility not to let it go to hell again.

Feeling pretty good today. Upset about losing my temper the other night, as I thought I was getting a grip on that. But then again, it was kind of an extreme deal. The "you guys suck" was more of a thing you'd say in person and casually, and I meant it in a taunting/teasing way. However, after re-reading it, it doesn't say that. It just says "you guys suck". Such care has to be taken to make sure what you are actually thinking is what's being typed, especially when you are angry.

I'm thinkning about making a page off my main page for policy ideas that me and you and some others can work on. Then we can present ideas as a group, giving it more weight. Then again, we may just use it to chat and bitch out of the limelight. But I've got some ideas churning, and might be time to start looking at it. Have you seen Karmafist's (spelled right?) proposition/petition. Read that and see what you think. We might be able to join up with others with similar ideas and start a movement!! Nah, nothing that extreme... But might be a good steam blowing place to keep the angry stuff out of the main workingspace. Just some ideas. --DanielCD 21:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Shadow Puppet stole the dove picture I was going to steal. As he seems to be a newbie, I'm going to go slap him around a bit. --DanielCD 21:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you disagree about the policy discussion? --DanielCD 22:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, just go slow. There is already 2 maybe 3 people suggesting big policy changes. Some changes are needed. This place needs stability, though. While in arb comm case, I noticed some patterns to problems. Project needs more structure in the middle where the most active people work. More about that later. FloNight ^talk 00:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just talking casual discussion/thinktank. Not hard core campaigning or anything. Just an idea anyway.

So you like my SNAP box? --DanielCD 02:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I thought the sweetie balanced out the snap. --DanielCD 02:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Thank you for supporting me in my successful RFA. Please drop a note on my talk page, should you need assistance with anything, or have questions about any of my actions. --Aude (talk | contribs) 00:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal

Temp. removed our personal discussion. --DanielCD 03:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message... Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Letting it go

Actually, no. I think that Jimbo did the wrong thing. I don't see why everyone should just shut up. I don't see any good reason that Daniel should make dark hints about my purpose in discussing it and I offered him to discuss it in private rather than do that. I was involved in the discussion. I have many times tried to prevent the deletion of valid content. And I'm not keen on people who think everyone should not talk because they don't like what they're saying. You can always look away. Grace Note 02:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why everyone should just shut up.

No one ever said this anywhere. Please try to relax. --DanielCD 03:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Note, is there anything that I can do to make you feel better about the situation? If there is, I will try to do it. I don't think there is. That's why I think we should let it rest for now. FloNight ^talk 03:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What we need is a cool box, a page where people can go abd bitch it out, get it out of their system, then come back to earth understanding that nothing that was said it meant to be a jugular declaration of war. And then the box content would be perm. deleted. --DanielCD 03:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully things will cool down over this soon. Take it off your watchlist. I keep up with it and let you know what is going on. FloNight ^talk 03:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

k. Will dooz. --DanielCD 03:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's my fault to start with. I told you about him, remember? WP is not a sex offender registery. Non-notable people should be listed. I gave him as an example. Not that you could have missed it since it was everywhere you looked. FloNight ^talk 03:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think... I just need to find another hobby. The communication here is just so poor that it's getting impossible to get things done. I'm sick of tangling with people, but I also won't set an injustice go unanswered. But even the mindest "please stop that, it's mean" is interpreted by people as an attack. Maybe I'm just not cut out for this. I just don't know. I can make peace so well when I'm not involved. --DanielCD 03:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Find something pleasant to edit. Start a new article. Be creative. FloNight ^talk 03:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I'm amazed at how soon I need to archive. Gone from two archives to six in two months. I also just cut my watchlist in half; got rid of anything even remotely controversial. Feeling better. --DanielCD 04:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it I'll email it. --DanielCD 04:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Poland

Thanks for the more definitive web link. Could you do a quick review of Nikki Craft and Lee Baxandall when you have the time? Thanks. AWM -- 68.122.118.161 00:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. Lee Baxandall should be fine in terms of notability. Might do a little bit of work on it later to spruce it up. : ) I voted a STRONG KEEP for Nikki Craft. Hopefully the tide will turn, now that WP:RS show her activism. If it gets deleted, we can have it reviewed. If we make the case (without making accusations of bad faith), we will have the upper hand. FloNight ^talk 03:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I just wanted to say thank you for voting for my RFA, of course if you ever need a hand, let me know :) - cohesion★talk 00:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more...

OK, so I'm an addict. One or two edits a day won't make the world dry up and blow away.

Hey that kinda rhymes. --DanielCD 20:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For one or two edits? Flo get a grip. The situation is fine. --DanielCD 21:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable American liberals There chew on that a bit. We need more such lists, like ppl with worm collections, ppl who enjoy softball, ppl who dislike tha Turks, man we're onto something here... --DanielCD 22:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As part of my rehab, I'll point them out, but let you do the dirty work. For now anyway. Got some good news this weekend and feeling Soooooo much better. So I said to hell with it. Now I have to explain to the "ball and chain" how I got a new password (she still thinks I'm locked out). --DanielCD 22:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know Wikipedia's only about 10,000 articles away from 1 Million? Wow. --DanielCD 22:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canned caveat: This message is solely my opinion and not a license for anyone to go off in a rage and insult me. If it offends you to the point that you feel the need to lash out, just ignore it and go on. It's not that important.

What do you think? I might just add it to all my messages anywhere on anything. Pretty spiffy. --DanielCD 01:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Evilphoenix's userpage. I think a lot of people are getting tired of te way things are. I've left messages that I thought were unquestionably neutral and explicitly stated that it was merely a suggestion, and had people hit the roof. That's why I'm thinking something like this would get the point where words in the message fail. But I don't know. A lot of people are noticing the problems. It's wierd. I'm just staying clear of anything that may sprout flying fists.

He just changed his page to a cabal userbox. --DanielCD 01:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cabal?

He just changed his page to a cabal userbox as I was typing that in. Look at the edit before that. --DanielCD 03:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm on some kind of long term Wiki-break. All the ridiculousness that's been going on around here has just been sickening. I find I completely lost interest in contributing, and I haven't been on here at all now in some time anyway. I find I am more engaged in interacting with actual reality, and tired of the crap that goes on here. I think I'll be gone for a while, probably not forever, but time enough to do some different things and let the Wiki change for a while, and hope it's still better then than now. I'd really love to see some sort of validation process for articles implemented when I come back. There's a certain point that articles reach that there's not much to be done to improve them, but much to be done to keep them in quality and from degradation due to bad editing and vandalism. Cheers.

I don;t really know what L.Monkey wants. I'm not so sure he knows either. --DanielCD 05:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Uzbekistan

Please tell me more what was the problem with copyright at this page. I am the author of these page photos and sites. My name is Dmitiry Pitirimov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabez (talk • contribs)

Cheers for the heads-up, will keep this discussion on the article's Talk page though.Vizjim 15:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu case. Raul654 19:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay looks like it's finally over. --DanielCD 20:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Springtime

I found my first "mystery legume" of the season here... Picked a sample and put it in some water for tonight... Flower articles flow freely from my pen in the springtime... Did you look at my article list and my pictures?

Image:SesbaniadrummondiiPlant.jpg = a fav. My favorite article of my own is Resurrection fern. --DanielCD 20:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrection fern --> This is the Wikipedia I originally fell in love with. A place where I could research a tiny bit of the world, and craft an article that would be more informative than anything else on the Internet. Something I can take pride in and learn something inside-out at the same time.

Before the dark times... Before the "Empire".

I just had to say it. --DanielCD 20:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately, no. The pitiful few Chinese words I know would hardly serve more purpose than asking for a cup of water, if even that. --DanielCD 21:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BeeFlower2.jpg This flower is amazing in its ingenuity. The bee is hard to see, but the flower actually has little overhangs that rub the pollen right onto the back of the bee.

I'm sorry I can't help you with the Chinese and stuff. I admire your dedication as far as taking care of business. I haven't had the heart to delve too deeply into that arbcom case you were in, so I'm not ignoring your concerns. Why do you need Chinese read? I can get it translated if needed. --DanielCD 21:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been to Mammoth, but I wrote some articles on cave shrimp that mentioned it. I have been to Cosmic Cavern in Arkansas (check out who wrote that article). In fact, I spelunked with the guy who owns the cave quite a ways back into it. Massive fun. --DanielCD 21:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making Healthy Choices - Today's deletion candidate. Goodnight, and good luck. --DanielCD 03:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from Jabez

Hello, I thank you that you are back to help me! I write an article from my Point of View. That's only I can do. Enyone who wish to help me to edit my article can do it. But, can you point me the to the exact phrases, which I must change. Can I, by the way, remove new addings to the page, which someone added and I consider them not relevant? Dmitriy A. Pitirimov

Attack page

Yes, I noticed it while looking at User:Moorbeyel's contributions. I like the traffic circle, by the way. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Dembski page

Hi, thanks for your welcome! I have a question about the page for William Dembski, intelligent design proponent. It's extremely biased against him and against intelligent design (not NPOV). I've been trying to discuss the problems on the talk page, and I put up a tag saying that the neutrality is disputed. However, a couple of the contributers are unwilling to listen to reason. What should I do?--Joy Crawford 23:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Carmel

Flonase I think you just need to admit that John Carmel was named after the scrumptious treat caramel. It is the truth and we all know it. You need to buckle down and accept it. It will all be okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.180.50 (talk • contribs)

P.S. - Sharon Rocha was SO named after almond roca, everyone knows it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.180.50 (talk • contribs)

To IP User:24.160.180.50, you can write about people named after tasty treats here

User:24.160.180.50, You can discuss how people are named after tasty treats on this section of my user page. You can't write about it in encyclopedia articles, though. If you do it again, you will be blocked because you have been warned several times.

An even better idea, why don't you pick a nice user name and join the Wikipedia community. You are a creative person. You would be a wonderful editor it you put your mind to it. --FloNight 02:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PROD

Check out the last comment on my talk page and LMK what you think. This is why I don't like getting into the deletion of things: it's hard to know what someone else is doing without explicitly stating it in a half-page explaination. --DanielCD 03:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answering you here. Don't worry about it. The process is suppose to be friendly. PROD was working really well the first few weeks. Then lots of editor started changing PROD tags to Speedy or Afd. Since PROD is suppose to be non-controverial, this is causing problems. There are very few reasons that it is necessary to change a PROD. But, some editors won't leave things alone. Some of us that use it alot have started questioning why the tags are being switched. Not questioning people directly, but talking about it on the talk page of PROD. Like every thing else around here, it works if people stay friendly with each other. --FloNight 03:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think the issue here is that it was removed as vandalism, not as an attempt to contest the tag. If it's vandalism, there's no controversy, so replacing the tag is ok. --DanielCD 13:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Flo, you know as much as or more than me in some areas of policy and procedure. There's no reason you shouldn't be an admin. When you are ready, let me know. Just make sure you feel you've got enough edits/time under your belt (I haven't checked any of this). --DanielCD 13:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the article. Seems that was the case. PROD is a good process. Even with its problems, it's less contentious than Afd or speedy delete.

Regarding RFA, thanks for your support : ) I'm going to start working on answers for the questions and the supplemental questions. Will let you know when I'm done. It might take awhile, I have several other things in front of it on my WP to-do-list. I think I'm in the saftey zone for both edits and months. (I'll start answering on your page again. Being lazy, one last time.) FloNight ^talk 14:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jabez looks like he might turn into an interesting contributor, if we can coax him to hang around! I'd hate to see someone with such obviously-needed knowledge about certain areas of the world get scared off too quickly.

McFresh from today's garbage can...

Check out the gory, unwikified execution details --> Allen Lee Davis.

Also:Check out the pics on the talk page of the Allen Lee Davis article.

McChurch --> Served up McNice and McFresh for your McEnjoyment. McChurch might be cute with certain usage, but this article looks inherently POV. Don't worry, I'll not dump anything else here soon. --DanielCD 14:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a "garbage can" section somewhere on my talk page that I can put "interesting" stuff for you to peruse. That way I won't clutter up your page and you can ignore it if you aren't... ahem... interested. --DanielCD 14:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CIA leak VFD

CIA leak grand jury investigation

Birthday greetings

Thanks

Re: Sorting med articles

Talk Pages

Re: David Hager

Bluegrass stone wall

No English sources

Minnie Dean

Esperanza elections

News from Esperanza

Re: RfC

Arbitration

Arbitration accepted

Rocancourt and others

Le pox de poullet

Nurse Category

Petition on Bullying in Wikipedia

Thanks

cuckold removal

An Esperanzial note

Moronobu

Bacchá

Forbes/Zhu

Re: Apology

Categories

Thanks

Hiya

Fresh start

Re: Stress

T&T at the World Cup

Social Security

My RfA

What up

Another Esperanzial note...

Unfortunately

Thanks

Thanks

Happy Valentines Day!

About the Newbie Tag

Thank You!!!

Question

Award

Silly category

RFA Thanks!

Wikiproject Child sexual abuse

Picture popups

Thank you!

Pedophiia project and RfA

Whoops

thx!

Sarah Jayne Vercoe, etc

KY

jimbo involvement

Your note

Potential deletion stuff

Offer for cite assistance

Brian Peppers

My RfA

Natural selection is Science Collab of the Week

Break

neoplatonism & gnosticism

la sequel

THANK YOU

Userboxes

RFA

Personal

Letting it go

Thanks!

Just one more...

Tourism in Uzbekistan

Final decision

Springtime

Hello from Jabez

Attack page

Question about Dembski page

John Carmel

To IP User:24.160.180.50, you can write about people named after tasty treats here

PROD