User talk:NeoFreak/Archive 4

My RfA

Thank you for support in my unsuccessful RfA. I appreciate the support, and am disappointed on being judged by what in most opinions seem to be the wrong things. Until next time, edit on! :) — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 03:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

AFD Comment on Mario Party mgs

This article has FIVE sources (please look at the very bottom of the contents. You will see a section called "References") so WP:ATT is no reason to vote Delete for this article. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 18:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

sot page

Actually the SOT page is well within my right to edit. As it was stated, I will refrain from the TG bio page. I clarified this with the arbcom team as well. As the SOT page was not in the area of contention, as well as WLU openly stating she/he had no problem with my editing that page.

As for the Transwiki thing, I'm all for it. I've only had limited access as of late due to my heavy travel schedule. I just finished up my last speaking engagement for a bit, so I'll have more time to devote to working on it. Mystar 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Stead's Law

Did you even read the discussion page before adding the prod tag? How about profering a merge or something, as suggested on the talk page? --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I just reviewed your "contributions" and your hit list. You seem to have a serious anti-pagan bias in your targets. I recommend you recuse yourself from further deletionista activity in that sphere, as you seem to be incapable of being reasonable. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 18:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

353d Special Operations Group

Probably could use a bunch of the information from Operation Igloo White. Current listing of Special Ops Squadrons the way it is (as redlink) is slightly disturbing, I doubt there will be articles about them, plus, I'm pretty sure some of them were NOT special ops sqdns, such as the 554th (as I know a former officer from that sqdn).--Vidkun 20:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming you don't mind my responding here. You picked one of the articles I've really been dreading having to delve into. I'm going to see if I can't get some physical sources on Operation Igloo White and request some physical material from the Air Force on the actual Group. I'm not wanting to rely on internet sources for this article. If you have any ideas or your friend can point you in the right direction that would be awesome. I'm going to have to do alot of ripping and tearing and then start a general rebuild because, as you've said, alot of the info seems iffy, the format is a mess and the sourcing is shot to hell. Any additional ideas or help you can provide would be of immense help. NeoFreak 20:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the sourcing listed in the Igloo White article is pretty good, especially seeing the changes from when I first hit it to the current version [1]. I don't understand the aversion to attributable internet sources, in an online encyclopedia. Some might make the argument, I understand, that web content might change unexpectedly, or simply go away. But, then again, so might books, especially ones whose subject matter isn't particularly notable outside a small specialty group, such as individual military units.--Vidkun 20:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'll use internet sources if they're there, I just don't like them to be the primary resource if it can be helped. I'm planning on using IW sources where I can. NeoFreak 20:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I'd ask, is the 353rd notable as an organization. I know about, but my interest is personal. Is it notable to the whole world? Not likely.--Vidkun 20:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Group (or Regiment) sized units are generally considered "inherently notable". This is more so held true if they have participated in combat operations. I'm not a believer in inheret anything in wikipedia though, I believe that the Group can establish notability through reliable sources and participation in Notable events. NeoFreak 20:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Group (or Regiment) sized units are generally considered "inherently notable" is this a policy or guideline somewhere?--Vidkun 22:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the concept of "inherent notability" is not a guidline or policy but is often used anyway, much to my disagreement. NeoFreak 11:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So, even though you disagree with it, and it's not a guideline or policy, you're using it as justification for notability? What's the point?--Vidkun 13:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated above: I believe that the Group can establish notability through reliable sources and participation in Notable events. NeoFreak 16:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Mukadderat#Crazy_Commies

Answered again. Mukadderat 23:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Rock on, sir

Any team work that you can think of would be awesome!Lotusduck 02:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Deletion

RE:"I wanted to give you a heads up that I've nominated the Therian Temple article for speedy deletion. I was also wondering what your affiliation with that site is as you seem to have an intimate relationship with it and I have concerns about a conflict of interest. NeoFreak 19:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)"----------- Well if you thought there was a conflict of interest, why did you not edit it to your standards,removing anything you thought to be non-nuetral, instead of deleting it? Also, when it comes to religious groups-the very pracitioners thereof are generally the best source of information on what a group is about-so if I was affiliated-this would mean that I had better information on the subject. Christian scholars (the best experts on Christianity) edit articles on Christianity all the time. Is this a conflict of interest? Or are you just discriminating against a minority group of adherents?~~Nnoctis

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA. --Anthony.bradbury 14:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Notification of MfD

This is to let you know that I have nominated your user subpage User:NeoFreak/sandbox/sandbox5 for deletion here[2].--Risker 03:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, NeoFreak. Given the wiki-climate at the time you saved your copy, I can certainly understand your reasoning. Perhaps our paths will cross again one day. Risker 17:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Requesting your assistance

I'd like you to take a look at Discordian Works. I have spent two months attempting to remove the unsourced claims in this article, only to have myself reverted by a numerical majority who don't understand what WP:RS means. This is really an open-shut case, it just needs more people looking at it. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 15:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You know you are an asshole. Get your ass up here and let's fuck like rabbits!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonlady83 (talk • contribs)

fetishes

Saw your comment on another page. I agree about the weirdness of much of this material, though I am unwilling to force my own preferences on others. Regardless of whether they are medical, psychological or sociological phenomenons", they exist , in some cases as reality with organized groups and publications, in some cases perhaps as pure fantasy. In either case they are worthy of objective articles. A good deal of porn is fantasy, and a good deal of mainstream video or film is as well. I dont judge other peoples', or I might categorize about half the material on popular culture here as trash. I dont particularly like porn as it happens, and therefore am a little out of my depth in discussing actors whom I have never seen. But what I do not is that notable popular fads are made notable on the internet, among other places, and if a group of people talk about a particular sexual practice, it shows N, and their talk is a RS for the existence of the people talking. And I thus expect to see you and a number of future debates on this. I felt it might clarify things to give my view in general, so you'll understand the basis of my opposition to deletion of almost any human sexuality related article. Im not going to judge what counts as N in politics , religion or sex. These are ideological minefields. If it exists, it has to be treated as N to avoid our own prejudices. DGG 07:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you state your openmindedness, because it is hard to tell--our interests have apparently not overlapped in other areas. I do not accept your ideas about sourcing or notability, and, just like you I don't limit it to sex

1. If people do believe in something it is notable. Truth or existence is irrelevant. Basis for their belief is irrelevant. If a notable number of people think something happens, that belief is N; if a notable number of people engage or pretend to engage in an activity it is N. Obviously it cant be one person; how many is a matter of judgment. In religions, if it has a congregation it's notable. In politics, if they put out a newsletter with more than 2 or 3 contributors, & have in the flesh meetings, it is certainly N. (For new age, its hard to tell either of these, and, like you, I find it problematic. ) For a sexual practice, real or fancied, if they put out a newsletter or have a newsgroup or have a blog, its probably N; if they have in the flesh meetings, it is certainly N. (Of these areas, I am most concerned about political splinter groups, in the US and elsewhere).
2. RS is separate. All we need for RS is proof the group exists. I consider that this meets the requirements of ATT. This is what makes the difference between WP and what I call the wild internet: In the net, there can be a single person behind something--and if nobody notices him, then it is not N in WP terms. I too do not like adding material based on one's personal experience or memory. I think condensing what one sees in a lot of postings and saying it's what a group does or says is not OR.

We are very obviously not going to agree on quite a number of things. I will go by the consensus. But I will also try to move the consensus a little to where I think it ought to be, both at AfD, and at ATT discussions. We'll be seeing each other, and I am sure we will stay friendly about it. DGG 08:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Free World

Should you be out protecting the free world from islamism, communism, facism, the red injuns, or the brits instead of writing about Battletech. Anyways, I'm in, I guess. Topkai22 04:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the advice all of what i wrote is from channel 4, how should i source it?

This is everything that i know

-Channel 4 did a sexology season about 2 years ago, one episode mentioned all of the infomation that i wrote, it is in my own words. -i cannot find a specific link to the program, though typing 'sexology channel 4' into google brings up the season -Nothing i wrote is my own opinion.

(I'm very greatful for all of this by the way) hows this for a start (and does this link work?)

[3]

--Willblundell 22:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I scanned through it a couple of hours ago (i have a dvd recording), i'll put the txt back in if i can find out how, Cheers --Willblundell 22:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What to do about List of Fetishes

Well, the article's pretty much gutted now, perhaps we should perform another merge?--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 19:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Stephen Burnett 20:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Stephen Burnett 20:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

For someone who claims to be so keen on discussion, you are being remarkably confrontational and aggressive. You've now been told, more than once, that blanking an article you don't like is not acceptable behaviour. There's a procedure to follow here. If you think it lacks quality, improve it. If you think it shouldn't exist, go to AfD. If you're not prepared to do any of those things, don't complain when you get treated like a mindless vandal, because you're not actually providing any grounds why you're not. --Stephen Burnett 20:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Thank you for the support vote in my recent RfA. Although it wasn't successful I appreciate your vote of confidence. Anyway, I'm continuing on with editing Pacific War-related articles and hopefully you'll see several of them on the FA nominations page in the future. Cla68 22:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

invitaton to wikiproect

You are invited to join the Homeopathy WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Homeopathy. Please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Don't delay---the first 25 members will receive this beautfiul toaster

RfA thanks from Akhilleus

Akhilleus gets new weapons.

Archive_4, thanks for your support in my successful RfA. As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons, which I hope to use to good effect. If you ever need assistance, or want to give me feedback on my use of the admin tools, please leave me a message on my talkpage. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Defusing debates over unsourced articles.

My best advice given your question is roughly, be reasonable, explain the need, pick some examples of things that catch the eye and ask for specific sopurces on the talk page to kickstart the process.

If it fails, post a note on the talk page of just one article, something like:

"I have tried to get sources, I now would like to remove unsourced material unless rectified, since so far I have asked several times and no sources have been provided for the OR."

Then take it to RFC, with the aim being to be able to add a request along the lines:

"This article seems completely unsourced and built upon personal impressions. While they may be accurate, unsourced impressions (even from knowledgable eduitors) still falls under OR. I have tried to get the article sourced and rectified [CITE CITE] but no joy. I'd like to remove the unsourced marterial, but without causing a dispute, as that's considered an appropriate next step. I don't want that to fall into an edit war, hence this RFC".

That's how I would generally handle a problem article. You don't need dramas and disputes. They help nobody, nor the article. Take it to the community, and ask for input.

I should add, my view is that those involved in the relevant articles do know sources are needed and will eventually fix it. But you do seem to (by your own recognition) have a slight abrasive side, and hence the above suggestion, more since I hope you can apply it to other articles which you might otherwise have disputes on, and learn better how to draw on the community to address concerns without friction being a part of it. An ultimatum (however well intended and policy permitted) 24 hour "you must do this or I will unilaterally change it to a redirect" just doesn't help, and Wikipedia does look for efforts at consensus seeking even if it is clear within policy.

Hope this is useful in general. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Reliable source

Hello! Thanks for editing Vorarephilia, you stated that answers.com and WikiFur are not reliable sources. While I believe you acted in good faith, I'd like to inquire why they are not reliable sources. If memory serves, WikiFur is a project under a corporation found by Jimbo Wales (but forgot which one) and Answers.com is just a mirror of Wikipedia (self-reference?) and a bunch of dictionaries. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 17:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand it now. Thank you for explaining. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 18:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Fictional Character Succession Boxes

If you'll notice, I wrote Bond gilrs and villians. There were 45 James Bond character articles with succession boxes: Auric Goldfinger Pussy Galore (James Bond) Emilio Largo Ernst Stavro Blofeld Rosa Klebb Julius No Mister Big (James Bond) Francisco Scaramanga Karl Stromberg Sir Hugo Drax Aristotle Kristatos General Orlov Max Zorin Brad Whitaker Franz Sanchez Alec Trevelyan Elliot Carver Elektra King Gustav Graves Le Chiffre Renard (James Bond) General Georgi Koskov Kamal Khan Honeychile Rider Tatiana Romanova Tiffany Case Tracy Bond Kissy Suzuki Domino Vitali Mary Goodnight Solitaire (James Bond) Anya Amasova Holly Goodhead Judy Havelock Octopussy (character) Stacey Sutton Kara Milovy Pam Bouvier Natalya Simonova Wai Lin Christmas Jones Giacinta 'Jinx' Johnson Vesper Lynd Gala Brand Vivienne Michel Check their history if you like.

You're talking about actor articles which isn't under debate.--Dr who1975 19:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've responded on the source talk page. NeoFreak 19:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I responded back.--Dr who1975 19:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Iraq_Research_Project

Thank you much for creating that subpage for the Iraq Research Project. I'm still looking for different wikipedia outlets to put it on so others can peer review its content, but I understand that it isn't an encyclopedia entry, and doesn't belong on wikipedia. You saved my ass since I was going to use part of it for a paper as well. I haven't been on wikipedia in a month or so because of alot of awful stuff but nothing you probably aren't familiar with but thanks for the save! chicagosds

My RfA

Hello NeoFreak, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 68/12/0.
Also, please wish a Happy Birthday to Her Majesty the Queen. Vivat Regina!

List of paraphilias

Hi. Following our discussion on Talk:Vorarephilia, I've created a small example of what I think a "List of paraphilias" article ought to look like at User:Sopoforic/Sandbox2, and I'd like your opinion on it. I am thinking that if this is acceptable, all of the very small articles we have will become redirects to the appropriate sections, and larger articles will have brief summaries and links to the appropriate article (with {{main}}, I guess).

If you think it's decent, I'll post up notices on the appropriate pages, and eventually perform the move and redirects. --Sopoforic 03:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Libel

What is this and why would you lie on wikipedia? What can be gained from falsely saying a site has a virus when it is a very basic html site that doesn't even have anything as advanced as even javascipt?:Attention The URL discussed below will attempt to put a trojan (virus) on your computer. Fair warning. NeoFreak 13:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC) ~~Nnoctis

Redirecting

Please explain why boot fetishism should be redirected at all, and then why it should be redirected to garment fetishism rather than shoe fetishism. John Anderson 21:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If an article does not cite its sources, I think it shouldn't be deleted only because of that. Much of Wikipedia would be deleted if that principle should be upheld, wouldn't it? Try to find sources in stead, or urge the authors to find sources. - There was already a suggestion on the page to merge it with shoe fetishism, yet you redirected it to garment fetishism, seemingly just ignoring the suggestion. A page for footwear fetishism would perhaps be the best idea, thanks for that. I'll see if I'll have time to get around to create it soon and to dig up some references. John Anderson 21:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

NeoFreak, thanks for participating in my successful RfA. You expressed concern about me not answer the questions; I've written some brief reflections, including an answer to Question 3, in case you're still worried: User:Ragesoss/RfA. --ragesoss 08:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No hard feelings

Yes, no hard feelings about the discussion on Talk:United States Marine Corps — I work on a lot of articles, but most of the military ones are historical rather than current, so feelings don't run as high. I still believe that the section title Global War on Terrorism is both non-obvious and biased for describing the Afghan and Iraq wars (for the reasons I've already listed on the talk page) and trust that the Wikipedia community will fix it eventually; however, you're probably not the only one who suspected that I was grinding a political axe, so I'm obviously not a good choice to make the change. Note that I would object just as strongly to a title with a strong anti-war bias, such as The Iraq Oil War or something similar. Best of luck with your Wikipedia endeavors and with your service for your country. David 18:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Favour?

Hi Neo, can you do me a favour for one of the pages I'm barred from editing? Can you revert this edit for me?

Thanks,

WLU 12:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

One more thing - you've got a 'c' floating at the top of your talk page.

Gracias. WLU 12:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be unatributed (sp?)

But if it was related to canabilism (sp?) don't you think I'd be DEAD by now? MJN SEIFER 21:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If it was canabalism (Which is real life) you would be murderd first, and would not be aware of the actuall consumsion (sp?) *that* is the differense. MJN SEIFER 22:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

ancient egypt and race

Both of our blocks have expired and I request that you participate in the development of this page. I feel as though I am the only non-Afrocentrist editing the page, and a third opinion here would be beneficial. Taharqa is under the impression that I am a "vandal" when she is the one creating sockpuppets to evade bans, and she is the one removing thousands of bytes of text from the article. I've made several attempts to compromise with here, and plan on seeking mediation so this can be resolved. Please help by continuing to edit the page itself and the talk page. Thanks, --Urthogie 15:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, my edit warring was based on Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. At previous points in the articles history we had an agreement in which we would discuss between reverts. You're right though, this method doesn't work and shouldn't be defended. It's kind of a mix between a content dispute and a user dispute, but I think I'll wait it out before I file mediation. Your presence will help very much. Thanks,--Urthogie 17:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is absurd, anyone who doesn't share your view is Afrocentric? Are you serious? Under the same guide lines wouldn't that make you Eurocentric? I have no political motivation, your accusations are tasteless Urthogie, I simply feel that you have a weak grasp on the subject at hand and you do not know how to interpret and use sources, let alone your control issues there and on other articles, which is why you've been blocked 3 times in one month. Don't make it sem like everyone is the problem besides you. This is why you seem to be disagreeable. It's your control tactics that turns everyone against you, not Afrocentrism, that's a load. And NeoFreak is already watching the article I believe.Taharqa 18:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

uhhh...

This otherin artcile does not sound neutral, it sounds a lot like its trying to show thata subculture is a bunch of lunatics, there is absolutly nothing there to counter the point that the mental health people are trying to make. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.99.173 (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

been reading hte talk page

why was Clodaus 's point about this article being on equal footing with christinaity shot down? it looks like it could be, they are both beleif systems, one is just more widespread... i mean theres nothing inthe article about the paranoid schitsophreanics who " talk to god" and thees nothing in ther about how some people think its justa big cult... is it because people are afraid of offending christians? i mean no disrespect but it seems a trifle unfair. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.99.173 (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Paul Yingling being smeared

I'd appreciate some assistance with the Paul Yingling article. An editor is attempting to smear LtCol Yingling as anti-war and lumping him in with the likes of Ehren Watada and Ann Wright over his piece in Armed Forces Journal[4]. --Mmx1 20:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Neofreak I can not accept that warneing at all, this is absurd imo, can you quote me word for word and break down how that was a personal attack? Define personal attack and please differentiate between personal attack and accusation, then please show me the wikipedia definition, otherwise It can't be accepted and I can take that accusation as a personal attack..

I wrote:

"I don't agree that you're neutral and this is based on factual evidence that overrides "assumption" since I'm familiar with you. So the good faith thing is null and void, we can still work peacefully, but you keep removing and vandalizing you will be reported once more, I don't care who gets blocked, at least it will be better for everyone else".

^And that's a "personal attack?

Urthogie wrote:

"Can you shut the hell up about my fucking "beliefs"? The cite is page 17". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ancient_Egypt_and_race#The_Redford_source.2C_pay_attention

^And this isn't? It's a shame, I don't even tell on people about everything that goes on in there because I want to work it out with out people like you, but you chastise me for this?! Imo that's ridiculous.. - Taharqa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taharqa (talk • contribs)

telling someone to shut up about your beliefs may be incivil, but the rule regarding personal attacks and assuming good faith deals with attacking individuals, not what they say.--Urthogie 17:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, Neo it's obvious that he cursed at me and told me to "shut the hell up", which is extremely offensive, all this preaching on good faith and I chose to abide by that naturally and let it go. Because of things like this Neo (double standards) I'd like to have a discussion with you because honestly I don't feel what you're doing is right, I feel that you actually need more background information and/or supervise a little better if this is what you're going to do. I have a huge problem with what you're doing and I'd like to settle it before it gets undemocratic and tyrannical. I'm at odds because I'm stuck trying to convince someone of something who only stops by once every 3 days to catch something on his radar and hand out (what I feel are) unwarranted warnings, you're not intimate with the topic. --Taharqa 17:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? At least for now on there will be a limit against what we can say to each other. I don't know about you, but I'm going to forget the past and look forward to the future civility.--Urthogie 18:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Neofreak, not Urthogie

Please don't litter his page Urthogie, I have something to say to you I'll send you a message, thank you..

Again, Neofreak.. Can you explain your reasons then and not just throw around power giving out warnings with out explanation. I'd like you to post the definition of a "personal attack" and then show me how I did it, only out of courtesy so I won't feel worthless as if I'm powerless and just being bullied around because this is disputed. I feel very strongly about my intentions and how "Personal attack" is defined and I feel that I broke no "clear rule", it would simply be courteous if you broke down what rule I've broken. We all see you're a powerful guy and if I remove the warning I'll get in trouble, etc, etc., I'm simply telling you that your warning is strongly disputed, hasty, and irresponsible imho.. I passionately dispute it as unfairTaharqa 18:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor

^The only thing you got me on that I'll admit since I only responded to Urthogie, but people steer off topic from time to time and make brief points every where, every single discussion, does not make it an "attack" or warrants a warning.

It is best for an uninvolved observer to politely point out that someone has made a personal attack, and for the discussion to return to considering the content, not the person.

And giving me a warning for it is extremely harsh as I gathered from the wiki page..

Now to the point, how was that a personal attack? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_a_personal_attack.3F - Taharqa

I've responded on your talk page. NeoFreak 18:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In this case Neofreak, I'm only hoping that I don't need to contact an admin or seek a third opinion, I want to get through to you and let you understand what you did was hasty and wrong..

Quote: I made the warning in specific reference to your insinuation that Urthogie's actions were "incompetent". I understand the point you could make that it was "the edit" and not "the editor" that was incompetent but such semantics largely loose their weight in the context of your tone

^If this is the case, I strongly and politely request that you remove the warning immediately, this is obvious to me why it does not warrant a warning and was not a personal attack.

You acknowledge the fact that I said the edits were Incompetent, that's great, now please pay attention. This is elementary but it brings home my point.

Incompetent - Inadequate for or unsuited to a particular purpose or application.

Incompetent person - someone who is not competent to take effective action

^So what is your rationale, that I was personally attacking his edit? And the interpretation of my tone is subjective, for you to give me a warning breaks the Good Faith rule, you assume that my intentions were to insult even though literal interpretation of what I said won't give you that conclusion, so this was a personal decision for you based on something else. I feel you have no argument for giving me a warning, please remove it. I'm asking politely and I'm not upset, I'd just like you to be fair and rationalTaharqa 18:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

^Okay, I'll be perfectly honest, you're contradicting yourself a lot and if you can't reason then at least I tried.. Your definitions are backwards, you justify giving me a warning for personal attacks by calling what I did an Ad Hominem, which is a personal attack all unto its self.. Yet you're not telling me how, only authoritatively stating so, and I guess I have no choice but to be a victim of fallacy..

I wrote: This wasn't even in the body plans section, you're so way off it's amazing, looking for an excuse to remove things, this is such an incompetent mistake

^Since you said the problem was with me calling his edit incompetent, that's what we need to go by, anything else is an addition to your argument to justify what you did. I commented on his edits, which were incompetent(Inadequate for or unsuited to a particular purpose or application.), unless you can prove otherwise, it was not a personal attack and makes no sense to call it an ad hominem which is just throwing around and playing with words,redefining terms and using Straw Man arguments..

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument.

^I did address the argument and it was inadequate, which was the basis of my comment, I said nothing about him being so. There's no way to reason out of this, all the spin language in the world doesn't deny the fact that you made a bad decision, but if you want to bully me (and only me) around on wikipedia, have it your way, you win, since you don't want to be reasonable and you have more authority than me, I accept defeat, even though I'm right. Good day...Taharqa 19:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa just made another personal attack against both of us in her most recent talk page summary:

removed discussion, I have no time to debate more than one unreasonable person at a time[5]

--Urthogie 19:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

^LOL, this is hilarious... Urthogie, your crusade at trying your hardest to get me blocked or whatever is futile, I really don't care either way anymore.. A lot of dishonesty is spreading around wikipedia and it's disturbing. If I get chastised for questionable statements that are disputed as personal attacks, yet you get to curse me out and tell me to shut the hell up, then I don't know what to say besides that I'm being ganged up on, all of the circular talk doesn't impress me and I hate the fact that it's supposed to be wrong to express suspicion when it's warranted in a lot of cases..Taharqa 19:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

i told you to shut the hell up about my beliefs, not about the subject itself.--Urthogie 19:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is not appropriate. Don't do it. NeoFreak 19:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You cursed at me and told me to shut the hell up, doesn't matter why. This (wikipedia) is starting to seem like a safe haven for undercover biased people, protected under that good faith rule. How do you take people that curse you in good faith? This is a joke! Haha, wikipedia is a joke, Urthogie gets blocked 5 times a month, curses people, and you give me a warning for criticizing his edits? Hahahahahahaha! Amazing! So flawed indeed, we're all human though, so whatever.. Some people need to Save Face..Taharqa 19:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend myself anymore on this talk page, as its just a childish dispute. I apologize for cursing earlier. I support NeoFreak's initiative to watch the page.--Urthogie 19:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Requests for mediation/Ancient Egypt and race

Sorry for the delay in replies, it's been a very busy past few days and I've been very much off-wiki. Anywho, if you don't believe mediation will be helpful anymore, just withdraw on that page and we can close out the case. As far as arbitration, I can't give much advice there. They typically don't look into simple 3RR violations though. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Sinagogue of Satan and The Liber of the Goat

Hey - I probably don't know as many policies as I should - which is why all the points you raised seemed to convince me otherwise. Either way, I'll try and ensure that Margolin doesn't think he's being singled out if his site happens to fail the criteria for being added to the external links. It seems his site, as much as I enjoy reading it, has been removed from Wikpedia a few times in the past (I think it, and he, had their own articles a while ago; but have since been removed). Either way, I'll keep an eye out and try to make sure that the right policies are helped kept in order. ≈ The Haunted Angel 08:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi NeoFreak, thanks for your support in my RfA, which passed unopposed. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Could you lend a hand?

As a former member of the Mediation Committee, I understand your frustration. I've made an attempt to talk to Taharqa to attempt to understand where she's coming from. I'd like to see if & how she'll respond to me. At worst, I'll have no better luck than you; at best, maybe I can get these two to actually work with each other. At that point, we have to look to the process of Dispute Resolution. (Note: I always respond on people's Talk page, so I'm not trying to hide anything. You're welcome to continue this conversation here.) -- llywrch 03:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I see you've read my comment to Llywrch, and I had a question I was meaning to ask you. Am I really lost somewhere in left field here, or am I right saying that users cannot just barge into other pages and behave the way she's behaved on Dynastic Race Theory? I do not have the time and energy to drag this through formal dispute resolution process, since I'm going to be very busy in Real Life soon, but if she's going to behave this way without even reading the source, there's no real hope of stopping this reign of terror. How do I stop her from twisting the words in that article to suit her will? She hasn't even read the source. Shouldn't it be obvious or somthing that one of us is editing in better faith here? Are there any abridged and quick and effective solutions for this at all? Thanks if you can help. Thanatosimii 04:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, I have no problem at all if you would of just quoted where this is said, it's an extraordinary claim and I only asked for a source.. No one in the scholarly field who studies the issue considers Mesopotamia to have had "significant influence" on the formation of the Egyptian state, so I simply asked for a quote but you wanted to battle me, I put my hands up also and put up a weasel word template since these words are weasel words.. Why couldn't you just resolve it and work with me? You're steady telling me what you don't have to do in an attempt to brush me off and not address my concerns, which I don't understand, so I just left a template. It shouldn't be hard to quote the source and provide the words "significant influence" if they truly exist in that context.. I only asked for you to work with me, that's why I don't understand why you'd rather complain about a dispute resolution to someone else when we could of resolved it easily. But whatever, please just leave the template there then if you will, and we'll call it that if you'd rather not work with me.. And llywrch, you never attempted to talk to me, I never got a message from you on my talk page, I wouldn't ignore you, I've never even engaged you..Taharqa 04:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 09:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

YechielMan's RFA

Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.

Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. YechielMan 22:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

MedCab

I'm the mediator of a case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-15 Therianthropy. Would you agree to join the discussion? Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Therianthropy

No. DreamGuy has had every opportunity to discuss things, and instead, he's been rude and abusive. He's not going to join in the discussion, because if he *was* going to discuss things, he'd have done it before now, during other opportunities (and not just MedCab). He would not post things like 'this is not open to discussion' if he was going to discuss things. He still refers to other wikis as 'Competing' after several people have pointed out that is incorrect. I gave him several chances to engage with other editors assuming good faith, and he got more confrontational. He has told me that I am 'Clearly in the wrong', and he'll just keep blindly telling that to anyone who doesn't tell him his misguided attempts at interpreting and defending WP:EL are wrong. Discussion will go nowhere, and *I* still try to talk sense to the guy who rewrites Mousepad, and spent a huge amount of time working with someone who was edit warring Canadian residential school system incoherently to shape him into a decent new editor.

This isn't worth my time; I was watching the page *because* I don't care one way or another about the subject, and I thought that the page needed a few people watching it who were knowledgeable about it but didn't care passionately, and instead I get told I'm adding garbage, called 'pro-furry', told that my edits are uninformed, told that I'm supporting a 'wikistalker' whom I had never heard of, and informed that I'm clueless and blind. There is no reason for me to volunteer to keep coming back to the page to be abused, even if he'll take that as a victory, in his world where wikis are 'competing'. --Thespian 09:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

I missed your return, welcome back. I'm pleased to see I'm still on the list of noteworthy wikipedians because I'm so self-involved I require the attention of strangers to prevent my self-esteem from imploding. WLU 20:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking for stuff to do? How about this page? Check out the creator's contributions. I'm not handy enough with deletion debates to know where to put it. And you're always welcome to check out my ever-lengthening to do section. I've also made suggestions for my adoptee. I've also nominated some stuff for deletion if you wanted to have a gander - one, two, three. And one day I should show you my enemies list mental list of users who's contributions should be watched. Though at times that's gotten me into trouble.

Not sure if you're interested, but there's a lemming of discord userbox. I don't think you're on ASOIAF often enough to love it, but you are welcome to theft it if desired. I love plugging my own ideas. WLU 15:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:2005_SoS_cover.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:2005_SoS_cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fpt 16:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Rewriting the Satanism article

Whoah, hold on, I only said I thought you had a good idea!

I honestly don't think I have very much to add to the topic. The ONA article was fairly easy work for me, mainly because there were significant references online that I could use, and because I was driven to make sure the article wouldn't go back to AfD again. And, really, I got wound up with it and blew maybe a whole week.

I agree though, an article on "Satanism" should be a lot more than even just 20th-century stuff. I agree, historical writings on "allegations of Satanism", such as by the mediaeval Catholic Church, would be a great part of that article, and whatever's pop-culture can be forked off to their individual articles (e.g. LaVeyan Satanism, Setianism, Boyd Rice, and so on). Certainly an overview of "Satanism" is what a Satanism article requires, not just modern pop culture.

However, I'm not very qualified to get involved in that sort of thing. As I said a while back in the AfD for Allegations of Satanism in Popular Culture (which I think got the chop), I'd love to do a load of research into "accusations of Satanism", because I find those types of things hilarious. That particular topic (e.g. the Satanic Panic and "Satanic day-care" stories of the 80s) is also highly embarassing to fundies, which I also like. But, importantly, I'd love to do it someday, such as when I'm retired.

Anyway, if you've got other major projects, no big deal. Just knowing that someone would like to do a better article, someday, is great. Maybe I'd pitch in, but I've only ever contributed in a major way to 2 or 3 articles here, and I'm not good at working within a large-framework article. I'm pretty much lackadaisical about everything here on Wikipedia. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you very much for your participation in my recent unsuccessful RfA. I am very grateful for all of the advice, and hope that it will help me grow as an editor. Sincerely, Neranei ^T/C 11:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes

You're top-most userbox is fucking awesome. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 21:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

		Thank you
		Thank you for your opposition of my recent unsuccsessful rfa, which concluded today with a final tally of 22/15/3. The comments and suggestions from this rfa, combined with the comments left during my first rfa, have given me a good idea of where I need improvement. —TomStar81 (Talk) 05:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to add your thoughts to the discussion at my recent Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Angus Lepper RfA, which failed, with no consensus to promote me. However, I appreciate the concerns raised during the course of the discussion (most notably, a lack of experience, particularly in admin-heavy areas such as XfDs and policy discussions) and will attempt to address these before possibly standing again in several months time. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 16:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating in Hammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

External Links at Vorarephilia

I wanted to let you know that I skimmed the talk pages at this article, and have RENDERED MY DECISION! Of course, my decision means just as little as every other editor around here, but I hope it helps.

That article is very short. It needs help. An external link to a recognized collective would add some content to that page. So, I can see why adding a link would seem to be indicated.

However, This Is Now How Content Is Added To Wikipedia. WP:EL justifies the link's removal. Furthermore, the constant re-adding swings this dispute into the realm of WP:SPAM. I would fully support the removal of that link, and also the subsequent blocking of the editor should this argument continue. You have been remarkably patient -- the Jimbo quote on your home page is terribly apt.

In closing, you can fall back on established WP guidelines. Until the anon can do the same, this link is not welcome. --Mdwyer 03:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 05:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Wandalstouring 09:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Woof, oink

Finall! Four days to get recognition. WLU 23:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 01:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Birthday greetings

Happy 232nd Birthday to the United States Marine Corps! See these "232 reasons to love your Corps". — ERcheck (talk)`