User talk:Guettarda/Archive 14

Archives

File:Meow3.jpg

What, not even a picture of a cat? El_C 09:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, other people may want to use the bed.

Are you even listening to me?

One good cat deserves another.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 02:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Gone live!

I just copied the newly developed version of the natural selection page to the main space after it was clear that most editors supported the new version over the current version. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

when you are back from break

Hey, I did not mention you by name, but if you have the time could you check this out: [1] I removed a section that was called something like "arguments in favor of ancestry" for reasons I spell out in this comment and a previous one. But, I fear that in the process I may have deleted some valuable content. But I would rather you decide what if any should be reincorporated into the article. In the linked section, I state my main concerns which I assume you share; they may require some rewriting ... Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the congrats on my talk page. University seems hard and intimidating, but I'll try my best. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 15:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Licensing

Thanks for your message. Yes, all of my pictures are CC-NC, but if one is useful I will certainly change the license. As far as the bird... I don't think I heard from your friend, but I certainly did identify the bird with some help from some local folks - it was a Gray Saltator, or 'Pitch Oil'. Also have found some cocoa thrushes... :-)

Oh, you may find this amusing: Taran Rampersad --TaranRampersad 23:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

your message

hello Guettarda. thank you for message. Your edits were not reverted because they were vandalism. However you changed the format for country introductions, which should be uniform. For more information, you can click here [2]. with kind regards Gryffindor 10:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

have a great trip

... I hope the Smokey's aren't too chilly, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Sorry I misunderstood. I am simultaneously going through all the recent comments re: Sangil at the meditation cabal site and my head is spinning. I'm glad you had fun. OBviously, I need a vacation! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

natural selection

Could you please address this: [3] ?

sorry, it is me again

Can you comment here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus#recent_changes I am concerned that User:CrazyInSane and User:Codex Sinaiticus will not give up easily - and will not allow for any compromise whatsoever. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Akee or Ackee

Hi Guettarda - could you take a look in on Talk:Akee please. I just reverted a cut-n-paste move to Ackee, but don't know whether the article should perhaps be moved, or the rest of the spelling changes reverted. - thanks, MPF 15:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Cultural Background of Jesus

Hi Guettarda, I find your last comments on the talk page to make an interesting point but felt that this would be more appropriate to post on your talk page rather than the article talk. I don't understand why Jewish is considered a culture as opposed to a religion in regard to Jesus. You say Jewish society, but why not Hebrew society? From my understanding, which is limited regarding this period, Jesus was not an amicable figure to Jewish society and somewhat of a rebel so does that really make Jewish culture applicable to him or would Hebrew culture be a more correct term? Also, do you think that there's a definitive difference between Jewish and Hebrew culture?--Strothra 15:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't see much of a difference, but I'm no expert on the topic. I also don't know enough to have a preference with regards to the two terms. I don't see the difference with respect to Jesus - the way he was looked upon by contemporary or modern Jewish society really shouldn't have any bearing as to what to call him, especially in the context of Wikipedia. There has been debate on the difference between usage of the two words in the past, but I don't remember the nuances. You should really talk to Slrubenstein about it - I'm sure you'll get a thoughtful answer from him. Guettarda 15:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Natural selection

I have foolishly tried to start a discussion on Talk:Natural selection concerning the definition of natural selection. If you have time, I'd like you to contribute -- or to tell me I'm a complete whack-o. Thanks. Ted 17:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hush

This might not be the best moment in time to be picking fights with people. We need to stay calm and collected. Falling out amongst ourselves is probably the last thing we want to do. Kim Bruning 14:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

:-) Kim Bruning 15:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Peace is good

Thanks for writing. I apologize if I misinterpreted. Elizmr 16:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Take care, Elizmr 16:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

i apologise too

accept my apologies for being contentious. from reading about you, i can see we both have a lot to offer on this subject matter. ill try to make a fresh start and perhaps together we can improve this subject matter under discussion at slash and burn and shifting cultivation. besides if you like cats, you clearly have very strong character :) Covalent 18:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

...again...

As someone who has recently edited this article, would you care to comment on: [4] and [5] Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Case study

Thanks for the barnstar. I'm sure there have been better analyses, but I'm glad that my presentation was clear. Cheers, -Will Beback 21:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

MfD

Thanks for the note. I must say, the number of different ways things can be deleted at Wikipedia is downright annoying! I added the subpage to the MfD mainpage, but I'm not going to go through what seems to be the pointless migrating of the template on the page itself or the delisting from AfD. What is the point of separate lists for deleting stuff? --ScienceApologist 01:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Maps on speedy deletion in Commons

Can you please specify correct substitutes for the maps you uploaded [6] and labeled with speedy delete because of an error? That way we Commons admins can see that there is something better available. Otherwise we lack important information to execute your speedy deletion request. Arnomane 21:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

again, a favor

I set out my own views concerning the future of the Cultural and Historical Background of Jesus article, but I think John Kenney and FT2 represent most clearly two opposing approaches to the article. Do you agree with John, FT2, or see a third possibility? I think we need to sketch out basic options and then try to get a consensus. You should register your view here [7]. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings & a question re: Encyclopedist

Hey.  :) How are you? And who's the humongous (and very cute) kitty? (I'm assuming he/she is yours.) I know you must've read/heard about the 34-lb. Chinese feline, and this one looks to be almost that. (What do you feed him, anyway? Chihuahuas? :p)

Anyway, I came across Encyclopedist's page and note that his account has been shut down. Something about vandalism. When did all this happen? I never knew a thing about it. Can you guide me to relevant links? Thanks much. deeceevoice 14:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC) deeceevoice 14:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I certainly hope it is not chihuahuas. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Lol - well, maybe not killer Chihuahuas! As cute as he/she is, I don't think User:Kitty is exactly in fighting form. He/Shes's a little, er, um (trying hard not to offend Kitty's vanity) ah ... plump. deeceevoice 19:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't know - gotta ask User:Kitty. Guettarda 18:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Where to put the litter box. Such strategic decisions can be difficult, depending on the size and layout of one's pad. They're usually hella ugly, and even the most fastidiously maintained boxes can be ... less than pleasant. I don't know if space or layout or both are problems for you, but I hunted up a few links that might help in the aesthetics department.

• A Washington Post article gave it a big thumbs up, but personally, I think it's kinda weird, like sticking a plant on top suddenly transforms it into a thing of beauty? I don't get it.
• I like this one.
• Really ugly -- what black folks would call "ooo-ooo'-glee" -- but it's supposed to work well
• Pricey, and I somehow can't see using a litter box as a phone table! You'd need some serious no-smell-'em cat litter -- or a deviated septum
• Same company, other options.
• Another.
• Not a litter box, but how cute is this "Cozy Cat"?

You've probably considered these or similar options already, but you sounded so pitiful/forlorn in your catlessness, I thought I'd offer a few suggestions. deeceevoice 19:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Almost forgot. Thanks for the links re Encyclopedist. Will read up when I have a little more time. Too bad about him -- that he seems to want to keep contributing, but now cannot. JCarricker's a real loss, too. I liked both of them enormously and thought they both had/have a lot to offer, though I couldn't/wouldn't ever in good conscience ever try to convince anyone to stay/return. (This place can really suck.) deeceevoice 20:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Guettarda

Just a little joke. Unless, of course, you believe what they say on [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=1799&hl= Wikipedia Review] that shows that Slim Virgin is really Joe Vialls. But hey, who would believe what they say? LOL 203.122.192.86 14:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather not go to WR. But pretty good work for a dead guy. Guettarda 15:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Knighthoods

This is getting tedious. If you don't agree then I don't understand why you won't raise the issue on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies), which is the correct place for such discussions. Most instances of "Sir" and "Dame" have been bolded. It is you that is in the minority and you who wants to change something that has been on the MoS for some time with no objections. Bring it up or stop edit warring. -- Necrothesp 15:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you're obviously unwilling to, I have now raised this on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) myself. You will note that it has already been discussed anyway, without a great deal of objection. -- Necrothesp 16:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Two editors trying to POV-push on an article constitute a majority, while two editors trying to remove the POV constitute a minority? Quit making false accusations, and while you're at it, try not to break the 3RR in future in your obsession to POV-push. Guettarda 22:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I admit I accidentally broke the 3RR - I simply did not notice that I had reverted yesterday. However, before you get on your high horse you might try reading Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies), where you will see that the issue of bolding has already been discussed and nobody appeared to object. Therefore, Proteus and I are actually the ones following policy, not you. It's fascinating that you think that your own POV pushing (because, my friend, that's exactly what it is) is "trying to remove the POV". Take this discussion to the MoS page where it belongs. The fact that you apparently won't suggests to me that you don't think much of the opinions of other editors and would prefer to make policy on your own, no matter what others think. This is against the spirit of Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp 22:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and what's the "shit" I'm supposed to have "made up"? May I suggest that you should attempt to be civil in future and not make accusations of bad faith? Particularly as you're apparently supposed to be an administrator. -- Necrothesp 23:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you're quite something. You violate multiple policies, apparently at will. You lie about my actions. You violate WP:OWN by telling me I need your permission to edit an article. You are highly rude and incivil. And then you have the nerve to tell me to AGF and be civil. All this so that you can POV push. Guettarda 12:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You really are amazing, I'll give you that. Accusing me of lying with absolutely no basis in fact. Accusing me of violating multiple policies, with no basis in fact (I freely admitted to breaching the 3RR accidentally). Accusing me of claiming ownership of articles, with no basis in fact (when did I tell you that you needed my permission to edit an article? Never, is the answer. And since I didn't write the articles in question it's a bit of a strange assertion that I would claim ownership over them.). Accusing me of rudeness and incivility, with no basis in fact. Accusing me of POV pushing, with no basis in fact. In fact, nothing you say seems to have any basis in fact. I've already suggested you take your opposition to the bolding to a public forum, but you have not done so, presumably because you have seen that opinion is in favour of me and not you. I have even brought it up there myself, but you have seen fit not to contribute to the debate, which hardly suggests that I am the one who is POV pushing. Don't worry, I have no intention of debating further with somebody who seems to be such a thoroughly unpleasant fantasist. Goodbye. -- Necrothesp 14:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. If you insist on having the last word, do so. I stand by everything I said, and I provided support for everything I said. Guettarda 14:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Pending issues with Daily Kos

Should the entire "Armando" section be left out of the page? I mistook it for vandalism when I saw the controversy section was gone, but surely having a section about the fact that the guy is involved with the site doesn't hurt if we stick to what one can tell from reading the site. I've never heard of it before so I'm not sure what all the issue is about BTW but looking into it. Moulder 03:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this guy Armando has been posting on the site under that name, but has tried to keep his real identity private. Now, somebody found out his real identity and is trying to use Wikipedia to publish it. Something about it doesn't sound right to me, even if it just his name and job. Anyway, it's something that should be decided higher up. In the meantime, I think it's correct for us to leave it out. Maximusveritas 03:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be prudent to just leave off all references of Armando until the foundation has had a chance to weigh in this. It's turning into a "pie fight." Guettarda, as admin can you put a "freeze" on this sight until the foundation can look at it?

Good luck

I'll be watching. The match is on here at 12 noon eastern daylight time. Not sure if it is live. I'm not looking at the scores in case the game has already been played. My son is traveling through Europe with two friends this summer. They got their passports too late to buy World Cup tickets, but they are going to Germany this week during the time of the USA game. Cheers, --FloNight ^talk 12:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Good, I like watching games live instead of recorded. It is a pain to avoid web, TV, radio to keep from knowing the winner/score. FloNight ^talk 15:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic game! Hislop was amazing. FloNight ^talk 18:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Fantastic result for Trinidad and Tobago. Congratulations. Hope you will celebrate it. :) - Darwinek 18:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In your group I am a fan of T.and.T and Paraguay. So I think your draw with Sweden is perfect occasion for Paraguay to get the 16-stage. - Darwinek 18:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It can be. English lads showed today very average performance. It is only a matter of time when someone will beat them. Also your coach is much better ;). - Darwinek 18:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

All we have to do now is draw England and beat Paraguay, and we advance to the next stage! Ok, maybe too much optimism is seeping through! --Deville (Talk) 12:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I am hopeful. Apparently we gave England enough of a scare that they are talking about bringing Rooney back early. After their play against Paraguay I think a draw against England is possible. Guettarda 13:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC) - copied from my talk page

Agreed. If T&T plays the kind of defensive football they played on Saturday, and has some more of that Trini luck, it would not be shocking to hold England to one or zero goals, and this is all we need. And if they play at this level again they will beat Paraguay. Five points would have us progress for sure. Even losing to England, and a win against Paraguay gives a chance of progressing. But we're getting too far ahead of ourselves  :)--Deville (Talk) 13:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

One also mentions that I have heard a remarkable amount of Soca-Warrior-themed music in the last 48 hours. --Deville (Talk) 13:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Peppered Moth Evolution

Now come see. I was in the middle of fixing it up. I have sources, citations and left a message in the talk. Please give your cat as many kisses as he/she requires.

MSTCrow 07:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for welcome

Hi there, great game! What kind of problems did you have that made you write this section about trolls on your page? Socafan 11:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What a pity, they were so strong until the end.

As you were nice to me already once I would like to ask for advice. Some admin had blocked me, claiming I was a sockpuppet of a user I had never even heard of. He did not present any evidence. I looked it up at the checkuser page, there was none either. I looked up what the users I was accused of being identical with had edited, and there were not even similarities in the articles they focussed on with mine. I requested to be unblocked, but the blocking admin did not answer, and others told me I should email him. I could not because I already get enough spam and do not want to provide an email address. So I asked another admin, Theresa Knott, and she was very kind and replied fast and asked Jayjg who had blocked me. All he replied was this, showing he actually had no evidence supporting his claim. Am I over sensitive if I find this offensive? My impression is that he blocked me in order to censor my support of another user who had been blocked without any basis. Socafan 13:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggested some changes to the policies and asked to enforce those we already have: [8] [9] Socafan 18:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will be carefull

Thanks, it will be a new experience! The previous ones of the past two years always skirted along us...-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

T&T regional corporation pix

Hi, I noticed you made the pictures for the regional corporations for T&T, nice work there. I found what may be a problem with some of them, although the problem may be on my end. For example, they are linked on List of cities and towns in Trinidad and Tobago as 200 pixel thumbs. I find that on my browser, some of these pictures don't show up, specifically Penal-Debe, Rio Claro-Mayaro, and San Juan-Lavantille. Through experimentation, I find that if they are resized to 300 pixels then they show up fine on the page. Is this something going on with my browser, or are you having the same behaviour? This is particularly strange, I've never seen this happen on Wikipedia. -- Deville (Talk) 20:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Name

As it's in people passports and legal documents it certainly is part of the name [10] Alci12 13:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is non-negotioable. It's a violation of NPOV to assert that one country's system of honours is more legimitate than that of others. Guettarda 13:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The MoS continues to disagree with you and always has. You are the person pushing a POV. As the link clearly shows 'Sir' is part of his name - in the box so marked on a legal marriage certificate. It's wiki policy to bold the name. NPOV is simply not what ever you wish it to be. Refusing to give someone their legal name because of your politics is POV Alci12 13:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not engage in name calling and insults. See WP:CIVIL. The MoS does not and cannot trump policy. I suggest that you familarise yourself with the difference between guideline and policy. I am simply trying to keep an article in compliance with NPOV. Over the last few days there has been what appears to be a concerted attempt to POV-push on the article by you and your friends. Please desist. NPOV is non-negotable - it's the one policy which is non-negotiable. Yes, NPOV is a POV, but it happens to be the POV from which this encyclopaedia is written. There isn't anything you or I can do to change that.

In addition, please explain how my politics come into this. To what politics of mine do you refer? NPOV is the only position I have advanced here. You look really silly when you make wild, unfounded accusations. I don't know why you choose to POV-push and disregard policy, but it looks to me like you are projecting. As for the link you provided - what does this have to do with Abercromby? I have no idea how it applies to your argument. If you feel that way, maybe you should move Elton John to Sir Elton John. Otherwise you are being inconsistent. If you feel that way, why is the article at Ralph Abercromby and not Sir Ralph Abercromby?

A knighthood is an honour that is specific to a single country and its current system of government. It would cease to exist if the UK became a republic. Wikipedia does not, should not, and cannot endorse (or dis-endorse) any single country's system of government. If you really can't put your POV aside for a minute and see that, maybe you should find other articles to edit.Guettarda 14:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I and I think a number of others would disagree with your statement that yours is the neutral point of view. To observe that the UK has been and is ruled by a constitutional monarchy with an honors system is simply to describe a fact, and hardly constitutes an endorsement that such a form of government should ever continue. By extension of your argument, we should be constrained to refer to the various Kings of France simply as "— Capet," since to number them would imply endorsement of their government as Kings. This seems absurd. Moreover, I should add that Ralph Abercromby is where it is for the same reason "James Rockingham Handley-Page Metcalfe" would appear at "James Metcalfe," barring the need for disambiguation. In fact, we occasionally do use "Sir X Y" to disambiguate from "X Y" when one has been knighted and the other not. Anyway, if you're set on presenting this idea of non-endorsement of individual governments as NPOV, I strongly suggest that you raise it in a broader forum than the article talk page, as I suspect others are also likely to disagree on the neutrality of your view. Choess 15:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is non-negotiable. Not my rule. Why should UK knighthoods be treated different from every other country? Guettarda 16:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm there was no name calling. All I can see is you attempting to control an argument by making false claims and telling anyone who challenges your view to leave wiki. "NPOV is non-negotiable. Not my rule." NPOV trumps everything but wiki didn't appoint you to ajudicate for the rest of wiki as to what NPOV is. As to you statements, knighthood exists in many countries. NPOV is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. If it exists it exists and we report it. So knighthood exists and it is part of the name (in some countries) so we report it as part of the name (in those countries). That is NPOV. Removing it takes a POV that it should be removed rather than simply reporting the situation as it is. And yes if other countries have a form of knighhood that is part of the name of the person in the law of that country then I have no problem whatsoever including it. That's treating each country equally and not making a judgement Alci12 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree that we should treat similar usages the same, e.g., "Don" in Spain, which we don't seem to treat consistently right now. The French usage seems a bit different: "Sieur" comes with a territorial reference, like a baronetcy, and is after the name. (On the other hand, there are Sir this-and-thats in the English translation of Froissart.) I don't think a prefix of knighthood was in general use in Germany: the Grand Masters of the Teutonic Order are simply "Konrad von Jungingen", etc., for instance. Choess 19:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

Having read Strothra's AN/I post, I thought I'd offer my thoughts to each of you (I'm appending this to each of your talk pages). I don't have any information or opinion, I should say, apropos of the wikistalking, about which you'll need to consult others. With respect to the article tagging, though, herewith are my two cents.

I think Guettarda's reverts reflect a general consensus toward the proposition that {{fact}} in specific and {{verify}} in general ought only to be used where there is some question as to factual accuracy raised by editors (were {{fact}} to be applied to every substantial, uncited fact in every article, the citation needed superscript would, I imagine, overwhelm article text). Notwithstanding that, Strothra's tagging appears relevant to the ongoing AfD; in order that notability should be established, minimal sourcing is usually necessary. I think, then, that each editor is correct here, but that you're simply discussing different scenarios. Guettarda apprehends, accurately, that oftentimes editors will add copious {{fact}} tags to articles with the subjects or principal editors of which they disagree, disrupting the project to prove a point, whilst Strothra applies the tags so that information important to the AfD might be borne out. Strothra is correct that a literal reading of WP:V might require that every sentence in an article be sourced (or at least be verifiable passim in a work given in the "References" section), but I'm not certain that it will ever be practical for us to achieve complete sourcing for every statement in every article; in the absence of some meta-rule, tagging exorbitantly for less-than-encyclopedic purposes is bad, whilst tagging either because of legitimate factual disputes or because an article that asserts notability doesn't provide any citations toward the proposition of notability is alright. Each of you seems to be acting in good faith, and it appears that each of you assumed good faith for a while here; perhaps a reassumption is in order. Just my humble opinion, of course....Joe 06:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

(Of course, I'm inclined to think Guettarda to be correct with respect to anything in view of his ostensible love of tuxedo cats , with one of which/whom I live. OTOH, T+T cost be a good bit by drawing Sweden. So he should be punished for that, I think...) Joe 06:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesse Dirkhising

I welcome your input into this article as I have been actively editing this article with another user, ExplodingBoy, and we have been working to come up with concensus on the article. Please comment on the article's talk page about any disputes and/or suggestions you may have with the article's content and wording. I have no dispute with his nationality since he was born in Rogers, Arkansas according to the news accounts and police reports. If you have an issue, I would be willing to remove it altogether. --Strothra 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh! I noticed that you mentioned weasel words. Which of the words are you referring to exactly and I will rethink the wording. --Strothra 16:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Armando Llorens-Sar

Please see the discussion on User_talk:Sceptre re your blanking/protecting of the Armando Lloréns-Sar entry, especially since your blanking was used by the closing adminsitrator as reason to delete. (Btw, love the cat.) ~ trialsanderrors 21:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Hello friend. I would use "Conservation in T&T". By the way I was a supporter of Ghana. I am always pleased when outsiders and African teams do well. Also, the Czech media think that Czech team will be in the final, so that defeat is good for Czech society I think :). Ghana played great game yesterday, as was the USA. Your wife is American? - Darwinek 15:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello Guettarda, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! Sam Vimes 20:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Juan Ponce de Leon II

It's always nice to hear from you. You know, you may be right Juan Troche Ponce de Leon my have been Juan Ponce de Leon II. Juan Garcia Troche and Juana Ponce de Leon it seems had other children, among them a daughter named María Troche Ponce de León. It would be an intellectual guess that they are the same person considering that the Spanish Crown did send Juan Ponce de Leon II to reconquer Trinidad. I will add it to his bio until proven wrong. Do you agree? Tony the Marine 06:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• There are a couple of things that bother me. First is that "Trego" is a surname that I can't find any reference to in Ponce de Leon's Puerto Rican bloodline. Second, that Juan Ponce de Leon is supposed to have governed Trinidad from 1571 to 1591 and Antonio de Berrío from 1580 to 1597. How do you think that worked out? Last, according to my notes the Spanish Crown sent de Leon II to retake the island from the British, a mission which he failed. Did the British invade the island during his life time? They may have ocupied the island briefly. If you can find an answer or a least have an educated quess as to these questions please let me know. Tony the Marine 07:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Mea culpa

See my apology at Talk:Ralph Abercromby. Perhaps it would be better to move this debate to a more visible forum than that talk page? I think a number of people, besides myself, would disagree that knighthoods and the like represent a POV, rather than legitimate enactments of sovereign governments. Perhaps Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies), where there's already been some discussion? Choess 17:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Fadix

I know I'm using my judgement there, but I think this is what's neccisary. First off, what I was looking at was comments like this one ("really pathetic"). While not the vilest of personal attacks, I've been involved in middle eastern articles (as a neutral third party) for some time now, and as I've seen, the primary problem is that every disagreement almost instantly devolves into a flamewar. There's no respect, no civility, and therefore no common ground to reach consensus. So, what I've been trying to do firstly (as part of my nefarious plan to get people working together on these articles) is getting everyone to cool off a bit and strictly talk about content, hence the warning. However, when he responded as he did by basically saying "I'll do as I please and if you try to stop me, I'll have you desysoped", it simply showed me that telling him to cool off wasn't going to work. If he would have simply said, "Sorry, lost my head, won't happen again", I would have been more than happy to apologize for the warning, wish him luck on the article, and move on with my day. But as someone who's seen where these things go, I assure you that intervention of this type is sorely needed and a neccisary evil for the moment. --InShaneee 19:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Chat

I did some additional research and Juan Ponce de Leon II and Juan Troche de Leon are the same person. There is no "Tego", unless that was his nickname. I rewrote the facts on the Juan Ponce de Leon II in a more logical manner which would make sense with the original article. Tony the Marine 20:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Lloréns-Sar

You're incorrect. The AfD has been reviewed and unanimously overturned (incl. the closing administrator), and the edit history has been restored. Please do not remove AfD tags unilaterally. ~ trialsanderrors 04:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a redirect. It doesn't belong on AFD. It's also a disgraceful attack article. We should have nothing to do with things like that. Guettarda 04:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The redirect was clearly installed against consensus. Leave it up for community consensus to decide whether it's an attack article or a reflection of publicly available information. The review was unanimously against closure. What you are doing is teetering on vandalism. ~ trialsanderrors

Attention

Your attention is requested at Armando (Blogger). Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda is witty

Hi Guettarda, I just want to say that I read a few of your comments in various Talk pages and I think you are quite witty! Good job my friend. --Petersian 22:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Puerto Ricans

One of the main concerns about the "list" is that it is getting out of control and that many names of people who have only had their "15 minutes of fame" or simply are non-notables are being added. I propose that we set up guidelines as to who should be admitted with a clear definition as to the terms "notable" and "fame". I am calling upon the parties interested to express their opinion and to help develope these guidelines. I believe that after we take a vote and reach a censensus, said guidelines should be followed and posted either on the article or the articles talk page. We need your help. Tony the Marine 19:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please particpate here: [11]

thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for your help in the whole talk-page spam "thing"... your attempt at righting things both with me and Cyde is very noble :) --kizzle 23:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Just an Idea

Hi, I would like your imput on an idea. See here: [12], Thank you. Tony the Marine

Welcome to the WP:1.0 Team!

Hi, and thank you for signing up for the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team! I wanted to find out what areas interest you. A few possibilies:

• Right now we are busy trying to review Version 0.5 nominations, I'd like to get up to 500 articles approved for Version 0.5 by the end of the month. If you're interested, please sign up for the Review Team.
• In parallel with this, the Work via WikiProjects group (WVWP) is contacting all of the projects for a second time. This necessitates a major revamp of our information organisation, including the creation of a new summary list to keep track of things. We're asking projects to provide us with a list of their most important articles. The group worked with Oleg Alexandrove to adapt Mathbot so it can produce worklist information for the projects, so we are encouraging them to use that system. In just a few weeks, we've reached a point where almost 12,000 articles have been assessed with our scheme and tracked by the bot! If you're interested in WVWP, let me know and I can explain the details.
• If core topics are more your thing, we need someone to go through the Core Topics Supplement and assess the articles, as well as adding a template (to be written).
• And when you're not doing any of the above, you can also improve Viv Richards to FA standard! I'd like to see that article in the V1.0 release.

Although we have a lot of people signed up, there are only a handful of active people trying to do an immense amount of work, so I hope you can help. It is very worthwhile! Thanks, Walkerma 00:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Draft of a Proposal

Thank you for participating in the issue of the List of Puerto Ricans. Please continue to do so by going here:[13]. Tony the Marine 02:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Débé

Hi G,

Just wanted to let youknow that I live in Debe, have been living there for the past 38 years, and whiles your article may be an attempt to describe the place, I do believe mine may be more detailed and currently accurate. Can you please stop rreposting what is obviously outdated information?

Jumbie

There are two issue - verifiability from reliable secondary sources, and neutrality. I know Debe well (albeit not as well as someone who lives there), I have seen it change over the last 25 years. There's useful information in what you added, but there is also a lot of information that expresses an opinion or that I can't support from secondary sources. If you can find a source, like a Planning document, go ahead. Is it still justified to call Debe a linear settlement? I don't know - I'm not a geographer. While it expanded along the main road, it also grew into the back streets. While property values have risen, for it to be worth including in an encyclopaedia entry you should be able to say that they have risen out of proportion with the rest of what can increasingly be seen as "Greater San Fernando".

There's also a problem with tone. A lot of what you say is chatty in tone, like something you would write for a travel brochure. We need hard facts. Saying "Labour is not confined to agricultural production, Debe has given Trinidad fine young professionals in nearly every field of work, including engineering, medicine etc." isn't really good writing for an encyclopaedia. How has labour changed? Why is it worth commenting on professionals coming out of that area - I know, you know, but that isn't good enough for an encyclopaedia. In addition, calling them "fine young professionals" isn't neutral language - there's far too much of a value judgement in there. Guettarda 01:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Game

No worries. I'm sorry you didn't get the result you wanted. Are you out drowning your sorrows and singing raucous football songs? :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sympathies. Just so I'm prepared - Are you going to become temporarily clinically depressed if France loses to Portugal? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, France is the last team on my list. Guettarda 14:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

RFM

I am filing an RFM regarding our interactions with Badlydrawnjeff at WP:RFM. You are one of three named parties. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[14]. Perhaps Arthur Rubin also should be included, but I don't see anyone but us three in the locus of serious, semi-reasonable conflict. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

re: Category:Living people

oh ok. cool scene. thanks for the info. was just trying to clean-up. sorry for the inconvenience.

re:RFC

Ha, I knew I forgot to do something. ;-) Thanks for reminding me. — The King of Kings 06:34 July 08 '06

re: ttt

i know another wikipedia user - sylveStter who might know more about the history of TTT.

re: nanton

i am unsure of the spelling but it seems to me like the article was started by samsonm nanton himself!

Puerto Rican bank

I would really like to rename everything to endemics of the Puerto Rican bank except for the small detail that Mona was not part of the Puerto Rican bank. [15] Also, St. Croix was never connected to the Puerto Rican bank and I have yet to find if Desecheo Island was part of the bank. Excluding Mona Island from the Puerto Rican endemics, although correct in theory, would create great confusion for readers. What do you think? Do we stick to the truth or do we appease the readers? Joelito (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Trinidad and Tobago Television

I have edited the article, but it needs a lot more fixing. I can't find any properly documented history of the station, and I am too young to know about the "golden days" of TTT. sylveStter 22:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

it's amazing that you say that this image is permanant etched in your brain. i found an old picture of that announcement from a social studies scrapbook, and i put it in the article, but i'm not sure about the licence on wikipedia. perhaps you can help me with that as well! sylveStter 21:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ecolog

I expected already a response from you. It is interesting to see the large variation in answers, basically between "of course that is NatSel" to "of course that is NOT NatSel", which actually convinces me that a better definition of NatSel is needed, another pile on to the stack of manuscript ideas.... :-) -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Latest reply ever?

You wrote me on 17 June with respect to several things, and I'm only now replying to you. I suck. I should be caned monumentally. In the absence of such caning, I hope you'll accept my apologies for my dereliction and my explanation that my failure to reply was a function neither of my not caring about our (rather jocular) discussion nor of my being generally averse to collegiality; rather, I became occupied with a few mainspace projects and focused–untowardly if productively–on them to the exclusion of all else. So... (A) I was sure that one of the tuxedo cats was El C's but thought perhaps the other was yours. I hope that you inculcate any future cat with the tenets of libertarianism; it simply won't do for us to have multiple cats espousing the views of you crazily liberal admins. :) (B) You apprehended correctly that I am, in part, of German descent; some maternal and paternal ancestors hailed from Germany, although most came from the Alsace-Lorraine, such that they may have been French citizens. (C) It occurred to me that this reply to an AN/I post might be interpreted as presumptuously paternalistic and/or condescending, so I hope you'll not thence have inferred any arrogance, etc. As you may have gathered, I was generally in accord with all you'd done and hoped only that I might fashion a third opinion that addressed the concerns raised by Strothra but nevertheless concluded that you'd acted altogether appropriately (although I can't remember apropos of what...). To the extent that I waded into an issue with which I was insufficiently versed and appeared to be offering from on high a Solomonic decision, I apologize; I will someday be revered by millions as a deity who will deign to consider the trifles of the unwashed masses, but I don't know that I'm yet there... Joe 06:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Guanica pic

Glad you liked the picture. I was browsing for some information to expand Puerto Rican dry forests and I found the pic. I decided to upload it since it aptly represented some of the flora of the Guanica Forest. Joelito (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33 recommendation

I've made a recommendation regarding User:Giovanni33; I'd appreciate it if you would comment here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Giovanni33 again. Regards, Jayjg ^(talk) 22:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Nanton

Im not to familiar with the different tags, speedy was the only one i knew. basically i just felt like when i wikified it needed a lot of help,i went back to look and it hasnt really come very far. also a lot of the edits are by nanton himself. if you know of a more appropriate change please change it. thanks for the help Kennykane 04:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Mi Gran Amigo

I finally created the List of notable Puerto Ricans with a strict criteria. I would like you to look at it and I invite you to help us in keeping it clean. If you would like to honor us with your presence in the criteria committee then place the list in your "watchlist" and add your name here:Notability Criteria. You're more then welcomed to add, delete or comment on anything in reqard to the list. Chiao, Tony the Marine 04:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Chaguanas

Hi Guettarda - I've added a comment (and a viable solution) on the Chaguanas talk page. Grutness...wha? 01:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• I looked at the situation and I didn't like the way the other person expressed himself about you. I added my comment. Tony the Marine 03:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

FAR on Race

Hi, SIRubenstein indicated you are a contributor to Race, which I've placed for minor review, due to the article length and few other concerns that have crept in since it was originally featured. (I also notice from your talk page that you may be able to help with some of the copyediting needed at History of Puerto Rico :-) Saludos, Sandy 13:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

categories

Yes, thank you. Is there anything in particular you want me to look at again. Thanks Hmains 00:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand you want me to use the Categories for Deletion section, but do you have a specific problem/question on a change I made that you want me to look at again or discuss. Thanks Hmains 01:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Subst'ing Talk Page Templates

I'm not trying to annoy you or any other user. I'm following the guidelines in WP:SUBST. The you have new messages template appears for any change to any talk page. Alphachimp ^talk 01:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Coincidentally, my bot is actually one of 7 bots subst'ing talk templates. This has been going on for some time (at least for several months). Alphachimp ^talk 01:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Peralta

The article of Medal of Honor candidate, Rafael Peralta has been posted for deletion. Please express your opinion here:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael Peralta. Tony the Marine 02:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Night job

I work nights, but off this week...I usually edit really late and I am in mountain time zone, actully. I think those folks believe I'm "upset"...I'm just reactive. I didn't even nominate the article...and in fact, would settle for it to be greatly reduced since almost all the information cannot be reliably referenced. Three folks that have been fighting to protect the article are either admitted SysOps at ED or have the same username here and there. Looking at a number of other folks editing history, it is less than 50 edits, or just recently returning after long breaks...sleeper troll accounts essentially.--MONGO 07:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with your paper. Thanks.--MONGO 07:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:Speciation experiment.png

Thanks! I fixed the spelling. I hope to upload to commons.... I just a few minutes ago created my first account there. My artistic talent is stick-figurish, so this is the first time I've ever tried anything like this. BenB4 14:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit Conflict

I respect your request. --Ryorye 01:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Radical environmentalism

You said: "You can't change the wording of a section and leave the same reference in place. That's unacceptable." Unacceptable according to what policy or guideline? I'm just following Wikipedia guidelines and my own experience as an editor, both here and professionally. I've also done a fair amount of academic writing, and I don't understand your comments on this. Please explain. Sunray 17:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW on the article's talk page you said: "... contrary to what you may think, I'm not stupid." I have never thought you were stupid. Far from it, I remember the first time I read something you had written on a talk page. I found it very apt, philosophically precise, and literate." I judged you to be highly intelligent then, and haven't changed that opinion. Sunray 17:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see what you are saying. No the sentence is not supported by any reference. If you look at well-written leads, they almost never are. The reference relates to the second sentence in the lead paragraph. I view this as a work in progress and it has a long way to go. The article, as it stands, is little more than a stub. A great deal of work will have to be done to make it a good article. I want to do more with the lead paragraph. However, I think it stands on its own for now — passable, but not great. We can improve it and I was hoping to work on that. Sunray 18:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

PRODing wikis

I'm just marking them for tagging on a few--I actually only had two more to do, as I'm trying to demonstrate that the WP:WEB for wikis overall are valid to keep, that's all. I'm posting in the WP:WEB thread shortly that I started for discussion. I really do think the notability standards for Wikis are really, really off. It's got nothing to do with ED... rootology 20:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

this is the link if you're curious.] rootology 20:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Dictator or Not?

There was an issue raised, and RFC was requested, several users intervened put forth a suggestion, and I followed it. Perhaps because YOU did not agree, you removed it. Ok, an AMA intervened, put forth another suggestion, again YOU ignored it because it did not SUIT YOUR WAY. This is beyond concievable and reflects very poorly. What a shame Wikipedia has appointed dictators for its website. Clearly you are have not respected any one else's view but your own. Shame on you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryorye (talk • contribs)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I advised you to file an RFC, but you did nothing of the sort. I asked for input from Grutness and Tony, and I followed Grutness's suggestion. You asked for an advocate to argue on your behalf, but I have not heard anything from this individual. Guettarda 04:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see your advocate's proposal. Guettarda 04:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"No problem; I advise you to calm down and slow down though. Guettarda and I are both administrators on Wikipedia, we've worked together on numerous articles. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't. He's a nice guy and a good edior and could help you a great deal if you'd listen when he tries to explain rules rather than biting his head off and acting wronged. One puppy's opinion; you may wish to try for a Fresh Start with him." KillerChihuahua?!? 00:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You have a very nice friend there. I honestly don't know you, and perhaps we did (slash I did) get off on the wrong note, but my first interaction with you was a very cold revert stating (rm triva, or rv unencylopediac etc). I acknowledge I posted the first message on the Talk Page, but you failed to post anything prior to that. In retrospect, I should not have started off heated, but also, you should have started a post on the Talk Page where the matter was up for a debate. As the case stands, the matter is an ongoing unresolved issue with a lot of conflict and wasted time. I stand by my case that KMC, Asher and others be included to a list of people from Chaguanas no matter the length of the list or if there is a link. I see this getting nowhere, except for the fact you're going to repeat everything you said making absolutely no progress in a resolution. Your ideal resolution is not to include any of the names, but I cannot stand for this. Thank You, Ryorye 03:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but, as the founder of Wikipedia has said, NPOV is non-negotiable. Your desired changes are not consistent with NPOV. Guettarda 04:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing personal against you. If it was a bot I was talking to, an editorial board, or another editer, I would still say the same things, so, its nothing personal. Again, I am writing/editing from a NPOV. I have read WP:NPOV, and I am writing in accordance to it. If you want, can you point out exactly what part you think I am going against. My advocate shares my view (of NPOV). Ryorye 04:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Either you don't understand NPOV, or you are intentionally disregarding it. Guettarda 05:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's neither of the two. Ryorye 05:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why are you editing the article to make it violate NPOV? Guettarda 14:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am not.Ryorye 01:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Continuing work on Radical environmentalism

Yes, I intend to work on the article. However, if you are going to involve yourself, I would like to see some sign that you have understood the concerns that I raised. I do not like to keep repeating myself to someone of your purported intelligence. My first point was that one does not footnote the lead sentence. My second point was that Taylor's viewpoint is but one of several views about radical environmentalism. I don't have time for edit waring. I asked you a question: Would you be willing to work collaboratively on this? I look forward to your response on these three matters. Sunray 22:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your statement that you are willing to work collaboratively. However, I'm worried at your continual refusal to accept what I've said about the lead sentence. You simply reject what I've said (with copious documentation) and provide no alternative case except the general statement that everything must be referenced (which is fatuous). You claim that the lead sentence must be referenced. OK, then I would like you to show me some examples of lead sentences that have references. Sunray 07:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant documentation on writing a lead. Thank you for the guideline on references. I am well aware of it. Now would you please give me some examples of lead sentences with references? Sunray 14:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Now you will be able to provide me with examples. What bothers me about this exchange is your persistence in maintaining your point of view. You have gone to extreme lengths to find justification for your POV. However, you are unable to back it up with concrete examples. This does not bode well for being able to work collaboratively. Sunray 16:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

And I, in turn, will await some concrete examples of a lead sentence with a citation. Sunray 17:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems you don't understand the idea of policy. I have provided adequate support for my opinion. You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to support yours. Oh well. Guettarda 18:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

I'd be flattered if you added your name...thanks!--MONGO 18:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, thank you for accurate comments on the Rfc. This is getting ridiculous.--MONGO 18:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR

He/She has been warned for a while now, and has just denied making any reversions. Could you revert in the meantime, and perhaps try to explain 3RR to the user? Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 18:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Your question.

I answered it anyway. See my talk. — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 02:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)}

You might want to watch my talk because I keep replying to you in there ;) — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 02:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)}

*pokes* to see if you're alive in there. — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)}

I need your help

Please go to Talk:List of notable Puerto Ricans and address User:Cmh, who insists on removing our established criteria link from the page. He also wanted to remove our flag. Thank you Tony the Marine 15:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• I like what you suggested. Could you be kind enough to do it? I fully trust your judgement. Thanks Tony the Marine 17:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Not quite back...

Howdy Guettarda... thanks for the friendly message! Alas, my access problems are better but not solved (our telecommunications monopoly makes access really expensive) but I should be around a bit more often... Hope u're doing well & haven't been too stressed by creationists and other wikiwarriors... :) Mikker ^(...) 21:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for new Caribbean stubs

Please support my proposal for Caribbean-related stubs at WP:WSS/P. In time to come, we'll be doing a good service to the region and its WP readers with those stubs. Tell me how good it's going, and leave comments concerning the proposal as well. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Chat

Thank you. I asked for your help because I know that if I did it I would make a bigger mess. Good luck with your final. Tony the Marine 16:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Opinion needed

Hi, I was hoping that you could take a look at G. Ledyard Stebbins, which I currently have on FAC, since you may be familiar with his work, and help me figure out how to make the importance of his work more obvious.--Peta 02:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Leave it all to me!

Just point at the page where you want me to add it, and I'll make it for you, dear Guettarda :) *hugsa* Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 15:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just added a 10 px wide black border, dear G - please let me know if that's ok, or you want me to change it in any way, k? :) Hugs, Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 15:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Bulbasaur

You do realise that article is on the Main Page, right? The article was only vandalised 3x in the hour before you protected it. In addition, shouldn't it be tagged as protected if it is, especially since it is on the Main Page? Guettarda 18:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

These are the only edits the aritcle has recieved over the last few hours. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bulbasaur&diff=66390198&oldid=66371959 Everything essentially has been vandalism and cleanup. Even when anons try and fix grammar, they actually make it worse. -- Zanimum 19:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin rollback is for vandalism

You know quite well that admin rollback is for reverting vandalism, which this rollback quite clearly wasn't. Please limit yourself to normal reverts for circumstances such as these. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And this edit is entirely out of line. It looks like you're angry, and that's a bad frame of mind to be editing in. Please don't let the silly little conflicts inherent in Wikipedia get to you. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've re-closed the debate and taken the matter to deletion review. Please feel free to comment there. Best, Mackensen (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks and Civility

Regarding this edit: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Regarding [16] this edit: It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Paul Cyr 00:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks? What about calling bullshit bullshit amounts to a personal attack? Guettarda 02:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on my talk page:

1. Please rephrase. That sentance isn't readable. If you meant to say what you did above my repsonse is this: it doesn't matter if you think a user "believes that he is entitled" to anything or that he "fetishes process for everyone else." As the template so bluntly and accurately says, "Comment on content, not on the contributor". You can attack his actions, but you are not allowed to attack him.
2. Because you never reported the issue as far as I am aware. I take it on a user-by-user basis. I don't have the time to go through the history of every user involved to make sure that all offenders are warned. In any case, AMiB isn't the issue here, your comments are - unless you are trying to minimize your actions. If you want to provide some diffs showing bad conduct on AMiB's part, I would be happy to look at them and warn him as appropriate.
3. Last time I checked, templates were designed so that users wouldn't have to type up the same message over and over again. If you prefer to give personalized messages, that's your choice, but generic messages are hardly insulting. I personally will use templates unless it's inappropriate for the situation.

Lastly, please reply on your talk page for the sake of organization, so that this discussion doesn't get spread out over multiple pages. I have your talk page on my watch list so I'll see when you respond. Paul Cyr 04:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Your reply is rather amusing. His actions are what I am commenting on - fetishising process and having a meltdown when someone challenges his authority are actions. The rest is just semantic crap.
2. "Because you never reported the issue as far as I am aware" - that's a pretty weak justification for your actions. I really couldn't care less, but for a new user (or one who feels embattled after being attacked by an admin) your actions would be a clear WP:BITE. If you are coming in as an outside observer, you can't attack the actions of one side without taking the whole context into account. You can't link to a conversation without reading it. On the other hand, if you are here simply to attack me in support of your friend, feel free to troll.
3. "[T]emplates were designed so that users wouldn't have to type up the same message over and over again". Yep, they are designed for the lazy and unimaginitive (I use them all the time, I admit I am lazy and unimaginitive). That being the case, it's still a calculated insult to use one on someone who isn't a new user (except for purely administrative actions, like a block). So yes, you are free to insult people, but then don't expect it to be seen as anything other than a personal attack. If you don't understand how to use templates, please refrain from using them. Guettarda 14:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)