User talk:Geni/archive 2

3RR

Reasons why I respectfully think you should reconsider your position on the Curps matter:

• 1) the claim that protection was not necessary is contradicted by the fact that there was a revert war earlier that day and by the fact that protection has remained in place in the five or six days since.
• 2) If Curps felt protection was invalid or that the "The wrong version" had been protected there are other routes he could have taken other than violating the 3RR.
• 3) " there are exceptions to 3RR when it is necessary to undo a wrongful action" yes but those are incidents such as blanking of pages or vandalism. To violate 3RR simply because one disagrees as to which version of the page was protected is an abuse, even if it is done by an admin.
• 4) If 3RR is to be taken seriously it has to be enforced no matter who violated the rule, even if that person is an admin.
• 5) "*why the 4 day delay in reporting this?" As I'm an admin with the ability to implement tembans for 3RRs I don't think I've ever listed a 3RR violation on this board before and was not very familiar with it. As I am a party to this dispute I thought it best not to tempban Curps myself so I decided to list it here instead. Also, I didn't realise there actually had been a 3RR violation until someone else mentioned it the other day.
• 6) For Curps' hyberbole to be valid, administrators have to accept that it is justifiable for an admin to violate the 3RR when The Wrong Version of an article is protected. This would be an unfortunate precedent. AndyL 14:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many, if not most, 3RR disputes are parts of larger conflicts. The fact that Curps is an admin makes enforcement more necessary since it hurts our credibility to enforce 3RR against rank-and-file editors but neglect enforcing it against admins. AndyL 15:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've said both on the RfC and on an earlier incident page that, in retrospect, when I realised I'd not protected the version I'd intended to it would have been better if I'd let it alone. I'm concerned that Curps has refused to acknowledge any scintilla of error in his actions of unprotecting a page on which he had been engaged in an edit war and giving a disingenuous reason for it (my "wikiholiday") or in regards to his violation of 3RR. Given his involvement of the page he clearly should have a) contacted me with his objection b) failing that contacted other admins, rather than act on his own. I it worrisome that he didn't even admit he reverted four times and refused to answer criticisms of that action on both the admin incident page[1] (where violet/riga criticised him for the 3RR violation) or on the The Matrix talk page where I raised the matter. If he had said something like "oh, I hadn't realised I'd done that" or "oh, I was being hasty" that would be fine but instead he completely ignored the criticism until I finally put it on the 3RR incident page and is now making more and more rationalisations. AndyL 17:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Avoiding a rv war on homeopathy

Geni - the edit you reverted can't possibly be a false statement, and your justification is fallatious and in violation with Wikipedia's policy about no original research even if it weren't. Wikipedia is not the place to establish once and for all eternal truths about medical science, and I think we should try to write articles that don't offend one party or another. --Leifern 22:37, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba

An anon user who apparently uses a dial-up with many IPs has been mindlessly deleting the end of the article for a while now, as many times a day as they have opportunity. I've put in a page protection request because I don't know of any other way of curbing this behavior. If you have any other ideas they'd be most welcome. Meantime, thanks for handling the janitorial work. Cheers, -Willmcw 17:28, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

MoS vote

Your two votes on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles did not have your name attached. (You probably typed five tildes, rather than four.) In order for your vote to count, you will need to revisit, and append your sig. Note that the location of the vote has been moved from the talk page. Noisy | Talk 06:27, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Censorship

Your repeated attempts at deleting information that doesn't fit your opinions are pathetic, in violation of WP policy, and anything approaching academic or medical ethics. I will fight you every step of the way. You can not delete truthful information unless you find a new home for it elsewhere, e.g., in another article (duely referenced in the article you delete from), whether new or existing. In the absence of such efforts, there is no other way to interpret such deletions other than as attempts to impose your (imho archaic) bias on others. --Leifern 13:19, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I suspect the proper thing to say here to you, Leifern, is "Pot. Kettle. Black." Thsgrn 07:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

"12 hour block"

Any particular reason why my 12 hour block (which was unfairly placed on me) lasted for more then 24 hours? I would be most interested in knowing why I've been treated so poorly for merely attempting to keep Wikipedia accurate. Alyeska 21:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

RFC notice

Be advised that unless you start playing a constructive role on the discussion on homeopathy in particular and other areas in general, I will issue and RFC on your conduct, which at present is reprehensible. --Leifern 12:49, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert on my talk page

I'd like to thank you for the fast revert of the (assumed) vandalism on my talk page. I'm a little new to this, and probably need all the help I can get. W.Haggett 17:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

A quick question

Hi Geni. Last time William M. Connolley violated the 3RR, you mentioned that the report was initially unclear. Is there any similar clarity problem on this new one? I tried to include both the diffs with respect to the previous post, and the diffs with respect to the revert point (if there's a more clear way to present it in the future, please let me know). Thanks. — Cortonin | Talk 21:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

BCE/CE and BC/AD

Hey Geni. In case you were unaware, SouthernComfort (talk · contribs) has been part of a small group of people insisting on the use of BCE/CE throughout numerous articles and not just Zoroastrianism. List of kings of Persia has been one other major place of argument and has led to that page being protected.

In an effort to solve all this the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Eras page has been created to produce a possible solution. violet/riga (t) 22:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Your account committed multiple vandalism attempts on Bill_Clinton (cur) (last) 18:07, 2005 May 24 Geni m (Reverted edits by 207.69.136.199 to last version by 69.7.160.187) (cur) (last) 09:18, 2005 May 25 Geni m (Reverted edits by 12.151.80.14 to last version by 206.183.139.68)

Erika Steinbach

You claim to have reverted Erika Steinbach to "version not created by a person who broke the 3RR". Pardon, which person? The page was reverted by me exactly 3 times on May 24. The 3RR rule applies to reverts that exceeds the 3 permitted reverts. Your reversial of a protected page was such against the rules of Wikipedia. Please restore the version by RickK.

you reverted 4 times in 24 hours. One of those reverts was on the 23rd.Geni 22:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Note also that you reverted to a vandalized version created by a person known under 10-15 different sockpuppets, including User:Caius2ga, User:Gdansk, User:Szczecin, User:AntiNaziWatch, User:PolishPoliticians, User:Grand Duke of Poznan, User:Emax and probably others (ask John Kenney or Chris 73 for more details), whose only "contribution" to the article was the claim that a German village was "Nazi occupied Poland" (obviously POV vandalism, and the name of Steinbach's birthplace is confirmed by the official German parliament biography in case you are interested). The person has been banned from Wikipedia numerous times for calling a bunch of other contributors "Nazis" and doing his "Nazi" vandalism. He has been a problem for years, read this post by John Kenney at the mailing list [2] (search for caius2ga). --83 (rev Witkacy who is most probably a reincarnation as well. Witkacy [3] shows extremely agressive behavior, very similar to Caius2ga and has been reported several times to JWales)

Geni's talk <> Geni's talk

On his page, Geni writes:

Discuss every edit on a talk page. Do not react emotionally. Assume good faith (even when you are pretty sure that the other person is not acting that way). Never revert first. Don 't make or respond to personal attacks. If the other person is trying to make things heated try mediation. Following this lot can result in two outcomes: a. It ends up in arb comm and your case is unasible. b.your opponent adopts these tactics and you end up collaborating on the article.

Sounds good. But this is what he does:

• Deletes sections, paragraphs, and sentences he disagrees with without discussing them on the talk page
• Consistently reverts back to his edition, no matter how hard editors try to find a compromise
• Dismisses (or rather, deletes) assertions by saying they are unsourced
• When presented with the sources, dismisses them as biased
• When presented with more sources, explains that Google is not God
• When all that fails, tries one of the following:
  • Uses fake science and jargon to intimidate his opponent
  • Incorrectly accuses his opponent of rhetorical fallacies
  • Engages in rhetorical fallacies
    • Appeal to authority - "most doctors believe this, so it must be true"
    • Cause and effect confusion
    • Ad hominem attacks
  • Then, when all else fails, jumps at the opportunity to block the opponent without warning.

As a result, he destroys this enterprise by rendering articles useless. --Leifern 01:25, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Generaly it is accept that at most there is one person who might have the power to destroy wikipedia and it isn't me.Geni 01:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

No, you're right - that would be to give you too much credit. But there are several articles of importance to the public interest that you have willfully destroyed. Something to feel good about, isn't it? In the meantime, you might want to read through the literature at this site: http://www.generationrescue.org/ I'm still waiting for you to take up the offer of injecting yourself with Thimerosal at a weight-adjusted dose, since you're so sure it's harmless. --Leifern 01:58, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

What offer? you have made no past mentions of this what are the details? What would be the point? how would it help in building an encyopedia?. As for that sight it doesn't appear to have anyhting I haven't seen before.

I think the operative term here is seen, because you obviously don't read or comprehend the literature. I have proposed to you earlier that if you are so confident that thimerosal is harmless that parents have no right to be informed about the controversy about it, you should put your own health at risk to prove your conviction. The way it would help in building an encyclopedia would be that you might be a little less convinced about your infallibility. --Leifern 10:42, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

kindly don't create strawmen. Now do you have any arguments that are not adhoms or appeals to emotion? If not can I suggest you stop wasteing wikipedia server capacity?Geni 13:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I can only note that your edits demonstrate no knowledge of the literature referenced on the website. As for ad hominem, my criticism is directed at your behavior. I know nothing about you personally and have no basis for an ad hominem attack. --Leifern 14:55, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I rather gave up after it claimed "There is no evidence to suggest that autism is genetic.". There is quite a bit of evidence[4].

Look, Geni, I would prefer to work with you rather than against you. I've looked over several dozen of your edits and admin activities, and it seems to me that you do a pretty good job as an admin (though a bit militant at times) and in various articles not related to science and medicine. Let me suggest - and I do this in the kindest possible way - that you rethink your attitude toward the topic. By way of example, let me direct you to articles on the Arab-Israeli conflict where, as you can imagine, there are constant and perennial edit wars. Still, articles are reasonably stable, because editors recognize that both sides to an issue must be given the opportunity to present their side, and virtually every assertion is potentially controversial. My point is this: if it's possible to create reasonably stable articles on that topic, we should be able to make one on homeopathy, thimerosal, etc. --Leifern 15:03, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

We did. Homeopathy and thimerosal were stable for ages. You must remember that for the most part these articles were not writen by me. If you want an example in the area of alt med largly writen by me try Homeopathic proving.Geni 21:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

first addition

If the first addition is not counted as a "revert", then this means that in a one-on-one dispute, the person who reverts the addition always "loose" the edit war. Its not the best solution...

Witkacy 11:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

"In the end the rule will favor one or the other"

Yes, but its better to favor the person who reverts the addition. I was not reverting to "my" version - and Zavinbudas is just looking for trouble. The Lithuanian name is of no importance in articles like Gdansk etc. Its like to add Polish names for French cities.. see also: [5]

--Witkacy 11:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikijunior name vote

m:Wikijunior project name Voting will end June 6, 2005 at 11:30 am EST. -- user:Zanimum

Recent Baha'i edits

OK nothing terrible for now, but I'd like to get an admin's point of view reasonably quickly before some of the more hot-headed Baha'i wikipedians see this series of edits:

A complete re-write of the Bahá'í Faith article by an anon editor that wasn't discussed. Basically a distinction has been made between the differing Bahá'í sects by moving much of the text relevant to the majority to Baha'i Faith (Haifa)). Having never met a Bahá'í from a different sect I don't know how they refer to us but it's not actually wrong.[6]

I suspect the anon 24.6.117.96 is a returning anon , 218.167.177.133 and 67.188.7.127 from around a month ago who seemed to have a bee in his bonet about the Baha'i electoral system. He also seems to pay a lot of interest into the Bayani religion (a closely related religion who have never been fond of Bahá'ís - we originally sort of shismed from them. Best estimates I have seen number them from 500-5000 in the 1970s)

A couple of problems:

1. The "Haifan" Bahá'ís are by a LONG way a majority. Wikipedia estimates that we have 7 million Haifan Baha'is but the largest minority, the Orthodox Bahá'í Faith (they are known as the Orthodox Baha'is, and we don't just attach the orthodox as a distinction), claims "72 localities". Even if each locality contains 100 members thats 0.1% of the total. The other groups are so small they don't even have a wikipedia page but are covered in Minor Bahá'í divisions.
2. What does this do to the Featured Article status?

I'd very much like your suggestions on how to move forward. Naturally I'd like to revert it all, but I am aware that I am biased in this matter. -- Tomhab 12:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also I note that in its present form, its just a summary of three other articles (of the three central figures of the Baha'i faith. If some sort of disambiguation is needed, it will need a lot of editing. -- Tomhab 12:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

we can't block him

OK. :) Thanks for the note. func(talk) 02:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Rochdale Canal1.jpg

What happened with the image Image:Rochdale Canal1.jpg - I can see you deleted it because it was misnamed, however apparently you didn't re-upload it (at least not on en:, maybe on commons?). I just wonder because that image is still used in Canal, but of course showing an ugly error message. andy 11:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wished I had seen this first, but...

Jews that feel they can edit against any change from the goyim that doesn't request their prior approval on all Jew-related topics get away with bullying by calling me having anti-Semitism et al. Who is playing the race card, simply because I noticed them using it like an ACLU card? Why am I expected to consult with a Jew every time there is an article that has both Jew and Christian written in the article? How is it that Jews can be so easily offended? Why is it that Jews try to dominate the media, whether they get paid for it or not?

[geni's advice on how to win an edit war Discuss every edit on a talk page. Do not react emotionally. Assume good faith (even when you are pretty sure that the other person is not acting that way). Never revert first. Don 't make or respond to personal attacks. If the other person is trying to make things heated try mediation. Following this lot can result in two outcomes: a. It ends up in arb comm and your case is unasible. b.your opponent adopts these tactics and you end up collaborating on the article.]

If that only solved the loophole problems that exist by manipulating prejudice and other things on here which go unnoticed by all except those accused of vandalism or trolling. I wish that we didn't have to deal with veiled supremacists, but they always try to achieve your trust. I really don't look for edit wars and bitch sessions, but when others don't care and/or are oblivious to systemic bias it really pisses me off. I'm about protesting injustice, with fighting words if that's what it takes to get attention on an issue.

ScapegoatVandal (talk · contribs)

ScapegoatVandal, you realize what you write is public here? --Leifern 17:38, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thimerosal Request

I've been following the discussion over on the Thimerosal page. It is unclear why thimerosal can't simply be replaced. Let's assume large numbers of people do not want to use it for reasons which are completely irrational. Why not humor them and sell vaccines which use a different preservative or are delivered in single doses? Even if the controversy is baseless, it seems to me that it is trivially easy to solve. Yet, we've seen years of acrimony. This suggests there is something I don't know. You seem to know a lot about the subject, wouldn't this be a great thing to add to the page? Peter 19:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

due to concerns about potential neurotoxic properties of the mercury based compound

Prove it. There are other posible reasons (lawers looking to bring lawsuits that kind of thing).Geni 01:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The proof of parental concerns about potential risks is well established - hardly in need of proof. Ombudsman 02:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

conflict of interest

It is trivial to show that this conflict exists. Whether or not it effects their integrity is a different matter. It is however a fact that there is a conflict of interest (unless you are going to deny US court documents)Geni 01:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Cleaned up your contribution for you. While the Geiers may reap perhaps thousands and thousands of dollars from clients who are systematically squeezed out of their right to seek redress through deliberately obstructive labyrinthine resolution processes, the poor drug companies can only afford to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on propaganda, lobbying, and bribing government officials and the medical establishment. Ombudsman 02:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why?

Why have my relevant links been removed from areas of wikipedia? Each provided link does pertain to each category and I can't seem to understand why I have been treated unfairly.User: Hopie

3RR/204...

I don't understand why 204... isn't being blocked for 3RR violation. You made a cryptic comment on the 3RR page that neither I nor Pj can understand. Please explain. William M. Connolley 23:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Thanks for the explanation and the block. William M. Connolley 08:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Evading your block

On the basis of contribs I am 99% sure Agent003 (talk · contribs) is CJ2005B (talk · contribs), SqueakBox June 28, 2005 14:22 (UTC)

An/3rr

Can you undo my edits to the wp:an/3rr page? I'm running into a bizzare software issue.--Tznkai 30 June 2005 01:48 (UTC)

Category:UK Wikipedians

Hi, just to let you know that the list of UK participants at the UK notice board was getting rather long, so I have replaced it with the above category which I have added to your user page. -- Francs2000 | Talk 30 June 2005 19:29 (UTC)

what the hell?

what the hell is your problem man? it took me a long time to get that quote and that cite, in the bush page. then you just remove it, its pertinant, and it should stay. put it back. Gabrielsimon 1 July 2005 01:57 (UTC)

Mailing list jollity

> I suggest that candidates must be nominated by an existing admin.

hell does not appear to be frozen over

LOL. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 5, 2005 15:24 (UTC)

3RR

Yesterday, or this morning, depending on your time zone, Huaiwei and Instantnood got in a revert war. You blocked Huaiwei, but apparently did not block Instantnood. Instantnood pointed out he had 5 reverts in two days, but not four reverts in one day, which is pretty obvious evidence of gaming the system. The intent of 3RR is pretty clear that Instantnoods behavior is just as reprehensible. Don't miss the forest from the trees, you should have blocked them both and it's not too late to do so. SchmuckyTheCat 17:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Agree with SchmuckyTheCat, I'm afraid this will further encourage gaming the system -- Vsion 23:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC).

geni's advice on how to win an edit war

Hi, I'm following your advice and would like to kindy ask you to revert your own changes at Wikipedia:Recentchanges so that the announcement does again "take up space at the top of this page to advertise what must be the millionth severy into thw motivation of wikipedians". See also User talk:KF#Survey Notice on Mainpage and User talk:Mailer diablo#Link to Wikipedia:University of Würzburg survey, 2005 for what went on before you got involved.

I wonder what it is that makes people jump at such harmless announcements, shift them around, delete them, etc. <KF> 02:28, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

My reply to you can be found at Wikipedia talk:Recentchanges#Link to Wikipedia:University of Würzburg survey, 2005. <KF> 18:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. That's a great help. I wonder why at first you were so reluctant to disclose it. Maybe I'll try one of the places you have mentioned. All the best, <KF> 22:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect

Thanks for unprotecting GWB article...you like canals... this one is obscure, but perhaps a good read if you haven't already. Have a good one!--MONGO 11:13, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation

I've put a new 3RR violation listing up on WP:AN/3RR - would you mind taking a look? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

24 Hour Page Protection

Howdy, Geni. You've recently commented on some Earthlink users here and Page Protected Vietnam Veterans Against the War. I'd like to respectfully request that you examine the history of that article, as well as your decision, a little more closely. I believe you will find:

• There was no 3RR violation, as the reverts were done to correct simple vandalism
• You reverted the article to a different version prior to protecting, against WP:PPol Protection Policy
• User:TDC began the vandalism with his unexplained reversion, here, wiping out the last 25 edits by a half-dozen editors over the previous months. When his vandalism was reverted, and requests were made that he explain his edits on the Talk page, he refused. He has also tried to claim he is reverting Copyright violation content, but review of his edit shows that he is instead reverting spelling corrections, formatting, link additions, grammar corrections, while inserting pages of additional content. You have locked the article into this vandalized format, for a reason I cannot comprehend.

I hope this was a simple oversight. Fortunately, it is a short-term protection. Thank you for your time, 165.247.213.210 10:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo

Do you realize that he undid your block, was blocked again, and unblocked himself again? Not only is he not simply doing an Rfa, he's been editing a bunch of other articles as well, see his contribution list. Evidently this guy needs his powers taken away. --TJive 00:14, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I also like how he gets away with editing a page after protection that he requested. --TJive 00:15, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Also, he blocked the anonymous IP user that reverted him for weeks. --TJive 00:18, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Other editors have since gotten involved. If you are interested, please take a look at the Rfc. --TJive 01:21, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

3RR blocks of admins

You appear to be have blocked more admins than any other user. Therefore, you may have a unique perspective on this proposed policy. I'd like to invite you to comment on it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

So glad to make your aquaintence

Chess. It is all about thinkin' ahead. Many moves ahead. Sometimes, many, many moves ahead. Why daya thin they used it in Blade Runner? Why does Sam Sloan like to play chess? Why does Amorrow git on your nerves so? Because: he made his mistake long, long ago and he learn his lessons real good. When he broken the law in a little way, in a violent criminial way, in his own house, in his own bed, he got sent to jail for 10 days to teach him a lesson. 7 days because you get 25% time off for a first offense. And that is going to be the last offense. Ever. The judge did me a favor. The last thin he said. The last move of my chess game with him, which he won. He said: "Obey all laws." OK, I run a red light sometimes in the middle of the night when no one's around. No biggie. I obey the law. You tell me real, reall specific like about the threat. None of this "I do not like you" or "you are not a gentleman" or quote-out-of-context or "Gotcha" bullshit. You can real, real specific about Amorrow's threat. I am waiting. Andysocky 04:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

More Amorrow stuff at Talk:Shirley Temple. tregoweth 22:17, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

And do not forget to notify me

Cause I see how sticky yer "Shut up!" technolgy works. I try to log in as Amorrow, and ya automagically block that IP. That don't work either. See? I am using Andysocky now and I will not touch Amorrow until you unblock it completely. I give you 24 hours, boy, and then I take it up the line. And you KNOW some above in the organization is gonna whap yeh, so do the right thing. And stop treatin me like sum TV you can jus change the channel on or flick it off. It don't work that way if you are in a position of authority. Authority AND responsibility go together. I baited you and you took the bait, stupid. Admit it. Checkmate. We can play another game later.

And do not notify User:Amorrow at all. I am not gunna play that stpid game. You notify User:Andysocky, idjit. You do it real nice now. Andysocky 05:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

And do not forget to unblock the IP address also

And let that be a lesson to you. You know, if you jus ASKED me to shut up, I would have, for a while, long as you like within reason. You jus gotta tell me what to shut up about. I go talk about sumpin else now. Andysocky 05:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo RfAr

I have requested arbitration against Stevertigo. Please add any comments that you believe are appropriate. Carbonite | Talk 13:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Interlingua on wikispecies

Hi, I left a note two days ago on the discussion page for wikispecies - I created the front page in Interlingua so now we just need to add it to the front page but it's locked. I assume you can change it? ia:user:Torquil

Edit: Sorry, the system kept telling me there was no response and it looks like it posted the same message five times.

joke

I went to great lengths to make a sub-page as as joke just for you (since I didn't know how). Lighten up a little. Hujjat 13:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

User_talk:Hujjat/Geni's_Complaints . Surprise, surpise. Geni, that is so out of character for you. I thought you always just played the Darth Vadar gambit to the Obi-Wan opening of others. 172.196.229.60 22:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency

About your keep vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency. I would like to ask you to reconsider. This project is aimed at imposing a POV on Wikipedia. This is explicitly against the rules, and more to the point: it indicates to new users that Wikipedia is a place to impose such views. If you feel that these users have valuable contributions that should be preserved, perhaps you would consider a vote to userify instead? Keep in mind that I and many other delete voters are not voting to silence these folks, only to prevent them from using a WikiProjet to push their POV (what of a WikiProject to IFD any image of a woman without a head-scarf or to remove references to the Moonies as a "cult"?)

Thank you for your time and your considered edits. -Harmil 13:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN

When did Jimbo Wales die and make you the God of the project? Zoe 04:18, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war VfD

I was just wondering if you knew what happened to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war VfD, it seems to have disapeared? Was it resolved? If so how come it has been resolved so quickly? Also Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:anti-war is baced on the the same arguments. Can I remove the templates for deletion notice from Template:Anti-war? Cheers.--JK the unwise 08:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Amorrow

A warning wouldn't have sufficed? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

So no warning? Although I was prompted into the message by an addition to my talk page; I was already concerned about your response. We assume good faith at Wikipedia, do we not? Now Amorrow may have intentionally ruffled feathers (mine included, hence my interest) but it seems at odds with Wikipedia ethos to ban anyone indefinitely without at least clarifying Wikipolicy on their talk page. If you could demonstrate to me Amorrow was warned his obvious jest could be perceived as a death threat, and hence a serious offence on Wikipedia then I'll let the matter rest. As to the e-mails, you have a valid POV, another POV is its a natural response (consistent with Amorrow's style to date) to being summarily banned. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

You know who this is. Save your breath, RoyBoy (or whatever it is you use when you type). It seems that Geni is going to have to go the way of Xaa (that has a certain right to it, does it not?) before s/he figures out that s/he made a bad decision. 204.147.187.240 06:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

where admins are needed

Hi - You made a comment at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship that admins are needed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Is there any particular coordination of admin activity (perhaps some list someplace of the basic things admins do and who in particular does those things), or is it pertty much random? As a brand new admin, I'm kind of curious what I should be thinking about helping out with. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:09, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Racism on Wikipedia

Why does wikipedia allow racism towards specific ethnic groups? 66.73.198.159 15:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Placing users in danger

Geni, FYI Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Placing_users_in_danger

IP address

I notice you reverted linkspam at Internet service provider. Could you take a look at IP adress and Talk:IP address#External links again to see what the anon, who is also User:0waldo, has been doing, SqueakBox 13:18, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I_sterbinski

Hello Geni, Im Moe Epsilon. I have a question for you. Do you know who user(s) I sterbinski is and why he (or should I say "they") contacted me. See the message they left me here. They sound like some elite organization planning on destroying Wikipedia. If you know anything tell me. — Moe ε

WP:CP

Hi Geni. I've seen your request for help with the backlog at WP:CP and I would like to help -- but I'm unclear exactly what steps need to be taken for each copyvio noted. Do we just confirm the copyvio and delete the violating page, or is there a more complicated procedure? --Ngb ^?!? 17:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. What happens to articles where the copyvio is just one section of an otherwise decent article (e.g. Hong Kong Observatory) or where the copyvio notice has been ignored by editors starting a new article? --Ngb ^?!? 19:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

202.125.173.146

Hi. I am not sure what the proper procedure is for this, but the person at 202.125.173.146 seems to be almost exclusivly a vandal. Is there anything that can be done, or should people just keep reverting his pages? Thanks, Michael L. Kaufman 13:31, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Property records

The content previously at Property records, that you deleted, has been recreated at Property records/Temp. The submitter claims that he is the copyright owner on the talk page of the new article. -- Kjkolb 07:31, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Font tags and my sig

Actually, the /font command closes off the tag, instead of /color. You can see that /font works, because otherwise the whole page and all the text underneath my sig would be swathed in green. But thanks for the message anyway! Cheers, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 02:51, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I think the problem was the Jtdirl's sig somehow lost a tag above, and your </color> fixed it. Hopefully this is the answer, or else just a strange MediaWiki bug. :) Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 21:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Homeopathy Edits

Geni, what is your background in homeopathy specifically? I appreciate that you are interested in alt med, but I have been a homeopath for 14 years and am not making my edits lightly:

"notable for its controversial practice of prescribing water-based solutions that do not contain chemically active ingredients." The way this sentence reads it implies that all solutions prescribed do not contain chemically active ingredients which is not true. Homeopaths can prescribe anything from a mother tincture which may be very chemically active, all the way to an MM potency. And it was controversial even before potentization was developed by Hahnemann. The law of nature "Like Cures Like" is equally controversial and notable.

The article gives higher prominence to Rajan Sankaran's theories of miasms than is warranted. Many homeopaths are contributing to miasmatic theories presently such as Jan Scholtens, Luc de Schepper & Lou Klein among others who are equally prominent and influential. And Sankaran's theories are still speculative at this point without much clinical confirmation. Hahnemann waited 10 yrs to publish his miasm theory. I would hesitate to even include his theories at this time in an article that is supposed to tell the world what homeo is about. It would be like putting Cold Fusion into an article on physics the day Ponds and Flieschman made their announcement to the media. It might be confirmed in the future but it is not yet to that point.

Calling J.T.Kent unscientific is merely editorializing, not "neutrality". Describe his practise and leave it to the reader to decide whether it is unscientific or not. "Scientific" is frequently in the eye of the beholder particularly in an area as controversial as homeopathy.

Have you read Harris Coulter's book Divided Legacy? Then you would know the role that the AMA played in suppressing homeopathy. Three reasons were given for the formation of the AMA . One was "code language" for getting rid of homeopathy. You can also read about the AMA's role here: http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/intro/history.php

Rrandorx^talk

The points you make about Kent do not indicate him being unscientific. Maybe it is science that you dont recognize? You list the points:

• insistence on the doctrines of miasm and vitalism,
• rejection of pathological data as a guide to prescribing,
• emphasis on psychological symptoms in prescribing, and
• regular use of very high potencies

Most homeopaths consider miasms & vitalism to be essential aspects to the science of homeopathy. Are you making an "un-neutral" judgement that they arent science? He certainly did not reject pathology as a guide to prescribing. Have you read his Materia Medica? It is nothing but pathology for page after page after page. A large part of science is careful observation. He was a master of observation. He just recognized as all homeopaths recognize that the gross pathology can be a less characterizing indicator of the correct remedy. Many remedies can cause/cure the same gross pathology but the more subtle symptoms & psychological states that precede and even accompany the gross pathology are more unique to the remedy. Using very high potencies will not be considered unscientific when their mechanism is understood. Perhaps you are not neutral in assuming that it is all placebo and no mechanism will be found, thus it is not scientific? Why dont you leave it up to the reader to decide what is scientific?

What is wrong with pointing out that the AMA was active in suppressing homeopathy? I documented it thoroughly. They have a history from their inception to the recent past of that kind of activity. They lost a lawsuit in the '70s where it was documented thoroughly that they were colluding with the FDA to suppress alternative medicine.

Alternative Medicine Talk

Replied to your comment there. I assume you were in a hurry or you would have replied in more depth to my earlier comments. I await your comments.

Hans Joseph Solbrig 20:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The Acharya S Vote

On Talk:Acharya S, you wrote:

voteing was closed at 01:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC) on the basis that wikipedia is not a democracy and everyone knows what the consensus is here.Geni 01:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Your statement concerning democracy is true: Wikipedia is not a democracy. "Majority rule" and "consensus" are not the same thing. Wikipedia works according to the latter. However, courtesy, community, etc., indicate that tearing up someone else's work on a talk page, regardless of its non-binding nature, is not a good thing to do. Certainly it is no way to build consensus.

I suspect that you & I agree that some of the viewpoints being expressed on Talk:Acharya S are ridiculous. But it does not follow that we should shut down discussion. I have replaced the voting section.

— Nowhither 01:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Paine has no user account

"I can't find any evidence that any of the people you quote have at any time edited wikipedia." LOL!! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Geni - the people I quoted wrote immediate above my post here.

Re: [7]

please notice that the people I quoted wrote in the paragraphs above -- the first person I quote was the very first sentence of the section -at the very top: "I usually ignore all this crap but the early closure and the page protection of this nomination smack of censorship...-Abeo 20:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)"

Use CTR "F" to find a word or a phrase on the page -you'll see that I didn't quote Ghosts, lol.--GordonWatts 10:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

re:Kung Fu Hustle poster

Hi Geni. There was nothing wrong with my uploading this poster and claiming fair use. I uploaded the image to be used at Kung Fu Hustle, which is where it was used. It appears that the image was orphaned when another editor replaced it with a different poster (most editors forget to place images they have orphaned on WP:IFD and they just get forgotten about). Rje 22:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Was the warning on User:XXGustaXX's talk page for me? 3rr doesn't apply to vandalism. I believe what he's doing to be just that. If the warning wasn't for me, well, sorry. :)

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 00:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

True enough, he's getting a tad annoying. :) --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 01:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you please block him? He's way past 3RR and now using sockpuppets. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 01:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Herbalism

I'm dissapointed in the manner you've handled this. Rather than working with me, you've simply abandoned all my changes. Shall I simply return the favour and change it back until you follow your own advice? I mean, you didn't even bother to leave the wikilinks in! Really poor.
brenneman^(t)(c) 23:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

"Am I happy now?" Ok, I could have been more civil above, and I'm sorry. You really are asking for it with that one your user page, though! ^_^ I've made a section on the Herbalism talk page (slightly snappy, I'll go and change it). See you there.
brenneman^(t)(c) 01:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

i don't think that wiping the section solved any problems

First of all I must say (having read their discussions in the past and having been accussed of libel-ing) that they probably didn't use it as a legal threat against each other. But, while the no legal threats may not fit, NPA fits. I gave 5 examples here and I can't understand how I should tollerate his behaviour or why, more or less, I was treated the same way with the one who did the attacks. I need any suggestions regarding this issue. Thanks +MATIA ☎ 21:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answer. I believe he disrupts WP (I'll have to prove that in a Rf-something? ). Yet I don't want him to be blocked or punished in any way. I surely want him to stop calling me far-right-anything and I would really like if he didn't messed every talk page he comes by (i suppose I could prove that too if needed). I don't mind if someone disagrees with me and usually I ignore personal attacks. But this is happening for way too long. +MATIA ☎ 21:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Image deletions

Hiya.. do you do anything, umm, "out of the ordinary" when you delete images? It seems to me that perhaps you're deleting only the description page and not the image itself. For example, you supposedly deleted Image:Logo lca.PNG, but when I go to that page it doesn't say "No file by this name exists", and it apparently still knows that the file size is 4KB. Compare that page with Image:Australianblackswan.jpg. Also, when I replace the word "Image" with "Media" in the link, your deleted image still appears as blue (Media:Logo lca.PNG when it should be red (Media:Australianblackswan.jpg). Coffee 16:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Martin Luther

Why did you revert the section on Martin Luther and Islam? He did actually say that, you know. Trollé 01:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC) http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20031125.html

User:194.72.50.152

Thanks for the block, I was just about to report him to WPVIP. Yous just saved me a task =:-) --Cactus.man ✍ 09:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Genisock

Is this you? -- Curps 20:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverting the unfair vandalism

Thank you for reverting the vandalism to Martin Luther. I think that it is unfair for all the vandalism. Your vigilance is much appreciated by us Lutherans drboisclair 01:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

GWBush Trivia

Is there a problem with leaving the trivia section up for a few days so people can see what the vote is about? EricN 12:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)