User talk:Otheus/Archive 1

Why did the chicken cross the road?

OK, so what is the punishment? First, the notion of a law restricting the activities of animals by themselves is absurd. Second, if that town did pass such a lamebrained law, there has to be a penalty or enforcement factor. If it's not frying the chicken, then what is it? Putting it in a cage and forcing it to lay eggs against its will? "Vandalism"? Gimme a break. The article is about a joke. Wahkeenah 03:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got a laugh out of it too. I probably overreacted by labeling it as vandalism -- I know you weren't meaning any harm. And actually, if you simply prefix it with "Presumably", I'm sure it will stay. But so far as I can tell, the law is real; however, just to make sure, I asked the operator of www.dumblaws.com to find out for sure. He and I went to school together (well, we went to the same school), so I should get an answer soon. --Otheus 14:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice, although "presumably" might get zapped by someone else as "speculation" or "original research".

And presumably, you wouldn't want to run a-fowl of some high-minded editor! --Otheus 15:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really am curious to know what the "penalty" against the chicken is, for breaking this law. My guess is that the law itself is a joke that someone slipped through. Wahkeenah 14:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've appended your question to my contact. Hopefully he can research the answer soon enough.

Yes, egg him on. OK, endless chicken-related puns and other jokes are now coming to mind. Somewhere, Jo Anne Worley's ears are burning. :) Wahkeenah 15:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

–

Humanistic Sociology Page Iterations

Hi Otheus You tagged my contribution to the Humanistic Sociology page on 02/07. I know what you mean by style, voice ect., I understand that the article has a long way to go and possibly sails close to NPOV. I would like to see the article improved. I will read the style/edit guide and try and change the article to reflect the guide ect.. Also I am happy to completely remove the article and let someone else write it. As to spelling I just use word’s spellchecker. Maybe as a IT person you know of a better spell checker. As to grammar I admit my grammar is poor. Kindest Regards Nigel Nigel Savage 03:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to input

Thanks for your quick response. I will address the "both sides show bias" NPOV issue with an edit. I will also rewrite the intro to incorporate the opening sentence. I hope more people will work on the article and improve it. I am based in Australia from the UK. For some reason I have a fascination with Polish history. I studied Humanistic Sociology at Uni with a lecturer who studied under Ossowski. I have put this mark-up into your talk just so I can dialogue with you re future edits, your input is appreciated Nigel Savage 06:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again otheus, I have just completed a quick edit incorporating the new opening sentence into the main intro. I will address the NPOV points soon. Yours in an endless loop of wiki co-operation Actually the edit you made to the identified NPOV is fine. Much work to do thanks for your input. Best of luck otheus with the job situation, I have worked as a programmer so I know what you are facing it can be a ruthless industry to work inNigel Savage 03:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tensioner, heave and motioncompensator.

And Otheus, did you receive the information I sent to you by mail? I have been thinking about what is a tensioner and what is a heave or motioncompensator. I think I found the difference. A tensioner makes a real connection between the floating object and the shore or the other ship or the sea bottom. The motion compensator is in contact with the bottom, shore etc, but is not really for 100 % connected. One want to maintain a constant contactforce of the drill bit etc in relation to the seabottom. For these reasons a heave and motion compensator is more accurate than just a tensioner where the forceincrease is not of that interest. Also a heavecompensator on board of a trailing hopperdredge follows the same principle. In fact a tensioner is not a spring, but is an apparatus with a spring build in. Do you understand what I mean? Jeff 18:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did :) It's a lot of material, yesterday was valentine's day, oh, and I just found out yesterday that I'm out of a job in a month, so you can understand why I'm a bit late getting to this :) --Otheus 19:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"philosophy"

Oh no, is he still doing it? I stopped paying attention days ago. — coelacan talk — 01:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, all his spam seems to be from the 17th. How many years is that in WikiTime?

The weird thing is I never touched his article before he spammed me. I think he just picked me out of a hat. — coelacan talk — 01:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Otheus

1)Samir was a very new user of wikipedia. He made mistakes in his several steps.

2)He only got scholarship for 12 courses at harvard in honor of a dead indian professor, and no further courses were offered from harvard for anyone after those 12. He did not have the money to pay and study.

3) Samir does not know why he was born on the day of his birth day cause he never wrote his fate, same was the case of finding the funaral date of K-R.

4) Samir had to struggle till now by pleading and begging, cause he is a genuine citizen of Bangladesh where sometimes human feel happy to be alive let alone with honor and dignity and scopes for free education.

5) Finally this article is too young in the science to have a name for itself or tagged with others. Yes it can well be linked with those but it has no direct relation with aging or dying situations. Rather it tells you whether you like it or not, you know that you will die someday though you may be young and healthy now and I will never believe that one accepts this truth about uncertainity and ceassing criteria of life very gladly unless he does not understand death or sadly he may be psychologically unhealthy. So we need to pull this thorn out of our throat, because, we can't pull death out, even when we are young and healthy.

Ofcourse, I applaud you for the final comments you made for Dr. Samir and I belive he would like it.

Regards

Samir himself203.112.199.125 09:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thanks!

Thanks very much for the compliment and the barnstar! The Hatto story is certainly fascinating. It's good to see so many editors working to keep pace with developments! -- Perodicticus 12:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James K. Polk

Hi, the place to request article protection is WP:RFP - however at this stage I dont feel its warranted... I'll keep an eye out tho, and let me know if it continues :) Glen 09:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and compared to articles like Lil Chris, I guess it's not that much of an issue. Are there any bots out there which do somke kind of semantic or traffic analysis which can alert vandal patrollers? If not, why not ;) --Otheus 19:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 2004 Madrid train bombings

Thank you for your message; I'll consider it carefully as I consider the case. In the meantime, you might wish to post it on the requests for arbitration page as a statement - I'm sure the other Arbitrators would find it useful as well. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, wasn't sure if that was "in the rules". I'll do it.

Oklahoma City bombing

Are you almost done with the article? I have just found a few new books and want to include information but don't want to offset your edits. Please send me a message when you're done. Thanks. --Nehrams2020 07:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Love all the great work you did on Oklahoma City bombing!! Your outstanding efforts inspired me to dig out the the copy of In Their Name I purchased at the Memorial Museum, and add some additional text and details (all fully cited of course) to a couple of different sections in the article. Thanks again for all of your great work! --Kralizec! (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, I only had to fix a few minor things after your nice sweep through the article. I'm currently adding some more information to the lesser sections from a couple of books I got really cheap on Amazon this past week. Keep up the good work and I appreciate your help. --Nehrams2020 06:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Perhaps you can help a few "widowed paragraphs" and massage the "Media involvement" section which seems awkwardly placed. But, please, do try to resist the temptation of putting in too much stuff. For instance, I think the cost of the building upgrades could have been left out. Happy reading! --Otheus 20:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarfati

Sure I'll take a look again when I have a minute, I wasn't aware that anything still needed to be resolved, but I'll take a look. JoshuaZ 08:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caution! You may get 3RR!

As per your reversions to Salsa (dance), you reverted more than 3 three times within 24 hours. Though it is helpful to do so, i think it would be better for you to ask others to revert it to protect yourself. - - Microtony 14:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning. However, 3RR excludes obvious vandalism. Inserts like "hand on her butt" and "fart" seem to apply here. --Otheus 14:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salsa_%28dance%29&diff=112712080&oldid=112708203 wasn't obviously vandalism, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salsa_%28dance%29&diff=113062161&oldid=113062054 blanked a section, but was followed by vandalism by the same editor. So I'll remove this from my watch page.

I know what you reverted are vandalisms. But in case some vandals trapped you then you may eventually violate the 3RR rule. Well, just be careful. - Microtony 02:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bacronym

Sorry to have re-added IBM. You are welcome to cleanup the article based on the new light. (That is has to be an acronym to be a bacronym). I had never looekd at it that way. Please feel free to revamp the article. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. I removed it (via WP:Bold), but also to mainly to draw attention to the discussion. I'm researching this topic. --Otheus 18:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might technically be OR, but I rewrote the article to make the term inclusive of initialisms (as much as it irks my sense of linguistic order!). It's especially perturbing (notable!) that at least two online dictionaries used non-acronyms in their examples of a backronysm. At least that marginalizes the OR aspect. --Otheus 06:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Hominem, Ad Nauseum

"ad hominem"...

Genius, HYSTERICAL! 76.166.123.129 23:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of ad hominem, would love your help. Seems that since "disagreements" with certain editors, my articles are being "stalked." 76.166.123.129 05:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide more specifics? --Otheus 13:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank goodness! Please, your sanity is needed. Here it is: because several editors disagree with this editor, Griot, re: Ralph Nader (see Talk page), and because I challenged Antaeus Feldspar on this Jeanne Marie Spicuzza talk page, which he seems to have a history of attacking, suddenly, we're all under attack from him, Calton, who now accuses me of being the subject of the article simply because I don't like my work tagged and trashed, and this Griot. "Griot" then accuses these several editors of being the same person (see below, Pastrordavid page, my page, Ralph Nader Talk page, practically EVERY page!), also is on an edit revert tirade (see User history). Now it seems he's "stalking" us, articles we're contributing to (see Griot and User 71.139.27.85, which is the most likely same person, as in, "The lady doth protest too much, me thinks!", or reaction formation, and denialism, all in one). Funny, it seems those quickest to scream "Fire!" are often the ones fanning the flames. "Whoever said it, let it," comes to mind. Notice, too, Griot is erasing perfectly permissible comments from his/her Talk page. Isn't THAT a violation? These editors are the epitome of Ad Hominem! We're all spent (see Ralph Nader Talk, Pastordavid, others). I even requested RfA. I would VERY very much appreciate your assistance with this WikiMafia! Thank you, greatly, in advance! 76.166.123.129 09:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example from the Antaeus Feldspar talk page:

Help, Please!

Antaeus, can you help me out? The nonsense with user 76.166.123.129 has started again. I'm battling her sock puppet army at the Ralph Nader article. Look into this: The Nervous Mermaid is wholly interested in Ralph Nader and has not commented on any other article in Wikipedia except for Seasons & a Muse, Inc, an article that has had only two contributors, one of whom, not coincidentally, is 76.166.123.129, who is often a commentator on the Ralph Nader article. Meanwhile, there's Telogen, who only comments on Ralph Nader and one other article, Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, an article which also happens to be visited extremely often by user 76.166.123.129. None of these people has been on Wikipedia for more than 2 weeks. It's a farce Griot 02:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC

User 76.166.123.129, Telogen, and Nervous Mermiad

--Otheus 13:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Otheus, thank you for your comments at user 76.166.123.129's page regarding my conflict with this person. I believe I have been editing the Ralph Nader article in good faith. I am a longstanding contributor to Wiki, having written many articles and edited many. At the Nader article, I believe I am in conflict with several people who are either one and the same or are on the same computer. Have a look at this: The Nervous Mermaid is wholly interested in Ralph Nader and has not commented on any other article in Wikipedia except for Seasons & a Muse, Inc, an article that has had only two contributors, one of whom is 76.166.123.129, who is often a commentator on the Ralph Nader article. Meanwhile, there's Telogen, who only comments on Ralph Nader and one other article, Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, an article which also happens to be visited often by user 76.166.123.129 very, very often. These people congregate around three articles: Ralph Nader and two very obscure ones, Seasons & a Muse, Inc. and Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. Is that weird? If I'm correct and these people are the same, a principle is at stake here: whether a handful of people can hijack a Wiki article (Ralph Nader) and use Wikipedia for self-promotion (Seasons & a Muse, Inc. and Jeanne Marie Spicuzza). Anyhow, thanks for listening to my conspiracy theory. Griot 16:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's try to assume good faith about these users. So far you having been, I think, and that's fine. However, the user has now launched a "stalking" complaint against you. I'm not sure what the user means by stalking, but your latest change to the Spicuzza article might fit under this category. So I would suggest for now that you undo that particular change. It's an obscure article, but it sources imdb, so let others decide its fate.

Now, while its against policy to use sock puppets and meat puppets, see WP:IAR. I believe that, in the debate surrounding the quote from Atlantic Monthly, they are correct. Just because you can follow the spirit of Wiki policies does not mean you should, especially when it lowers the quality of an article. In my opinion, that line slants the article with an anti-Bush point-of-view and should at least be moved to a more relevant section of the article.

Finally, let's say it's no longer time to assume good faith. You can (1) ask an admin to find out if the users in question have used the same IP address. (2) See the WP:DR page and WP:RFCpages calling attention to both the argument and the argumentation tactics.

But let's first give the user the chance to respond to my message.

--Otheus 16:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck it. I give up. I can't argue with four different people. Griot 17:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to argue with me on the RN article. I am not interested in editing or commenting on it. I only commented on it here to demonstrate that I am not unilaterally taking sides. As a long-time internet-community poster (dial-in BBSes, newsgroups, MUDs, Internet chat rooms, Web-based BBSes, email newsgroups, and now wikipedia), I understand your frustration. Over the past month, I've been devling into past debates between users, ones that have gotten users banned, others disillusioned, and yet other users burned out. I'm trying to prevent that here. Meanwhile, am going to make ~~a request for checkuser~~ a case at WP:SPP. We'll see where that goes. --Otheus 17:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Count me among the disillusioned and soon to be burned out. This is clearly a case of the same people doing the same edits. Why should I waste my time with this bullshit? Griot 17:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are remedies. Take some time off, let me follow up at WP:SPP and see where this leads. --Otheus 17:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Otheus, thanks for the mention *lol*. Just wanted to correct some things before I'm drawn and quartered ;) My use of "obtuse" seems proper- "not sharp," yes? Blunt, if you will. "Lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect." Opinion, yes, but correct usage, I think. Having studied in Germany, presently studying German language, I can tell you that "Bitte" also means, "please," or a formal acknowledgement or offering, like, "welcome," or "you're welcome." Just wanted to clear that up. I noticed, too, reading the history, Fledspar incident, etc., (again, adding my OP) but is there proof in the "accusations"? Otherwise, could be libelous- I even see the IP is identified publicly as hers (if, in fact, it is, and not someone else's, or someone else using it). Is that legal? Just expressing concern. Things aren't always as they seem, you're probably aware. IP sharing can be a tricky business.

Hope we meet again under happier circumstances. Bitte! And danke... Oh, you may want to add that, if "the accused" were all the same person, we'd not only be 'simultaneous' writers, as you've duly noted, we'd basically never sleep, from the looks of it! The Nervous Mermaid 12:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TNM. I'm glad you don't seem to be taking offense. Of course it's not libel !! Imagine you are asleep in bed at night. You hear a noise. You get up and see the front door swinging shut. You go out and you see someone who looks like your neighbor racing back to their home, going in the front door. The next day, you call the police and say, "I think my neighbor may have broken and entered into my house last night". You sign an affidavit as such. That's not libel. It turns out that your neighbor was also broken into. It's still not libel. You are simply stating for the record that you saw someone do something wrong. No, libel would be me claiming something damaging about you that is not true, that cannot possibly be known by me or that I definitely know to be false, and it is damaging.

Anyway, in due course, admins will determine whether or not you are a sockpuppet of the other editors.

And some of us wikipedians do not ever sleep. --Otheus 13:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Otheus. First, in the interest of fairness and neutrality, and since you have the attention for detail, I kindly request that you file a suspected 'sockpuppetry' for Griot and 71.139.27.85. It's fairly obvious to me that this is the same person.

Also, I think you've misunderstood my remarks. I simply observed that some of the facts, even before my appearance, seem more like accusations. Presenting accusations as fact and identifying a living person's IP location or address publically, if it is theirs, and without their permission, seems potentially libelous to me. That's it.

Sadly, not one mention about the quality of my contributions, which were made in good faith. One senior user is met with disagreement and so hunts the others down and makes enough noise, suddenly our good faith and contributions are met with attack. I think anything more I could contribute at this point is suspect, and I find the flavor is gone. I do sleep, and have other matters I'd rather involve myself with. Tsch��, The Nervous Mermaid 20:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding

Defend yourself, why don't ya? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Telogen

Your silence speaks volumes. 71.139.27.85 20:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not do this: you CANNOT do things like this, ie, signing your post with someone else's name/ IP address." I didn't! 76.166.123.129 02:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this on my page, too. I'm really upset-- "Looking at the edit, I think when I pasted from the my Talk page, it reverted the "odd" characters or something. Boy, this really hurts, though. I'll always be guilty until proven innocent, it seems. 76.166.123.129 02:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)" 76.166.123.129 02:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to list of suspects of sockpuppets Griot/71.139.27.85, Mikesmash. Plus 71.139.27.85 is still active and vandalizing my talk page. Btw, how did you know that Griot was male and ran for mayor under Green Party in SF? 76.166.123.129 03:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A serious error on my part. I saw this addition to his user page, and thought it was an autobiography, but it is not. I overlooked this line in his User page:

I also use this page to write first drafts of articles. Pardon the gibbrerish below. There is method in my madness.

Okay, now I see what you mean. I thought you meant User:71.139.27.85 or The Nervous Mermaid signatures, where the characters reverted somhow to question marks. I hurriedly cut and pasted from my Talk page, above, instead of below, your signature. It was an accident. I didn't do it deliberately. I'm very sorry. 76.166.123.129 06:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, I saw my mistake, and removed the comment from your page. Faith restored. --Otheus 08:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC) :)[reply]

Oh yeah! I see what you mean about the article. It wasn't there when I visited the other day.

Thank you Otheus, I appreciate all your help. 76.166.123.129 21:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Telogen

Hi, I am a clerk with the Checkuser system. I was wondering whether you wanted to fill the case now or to wait a bit longer? :) If you want to wait, could you temporary remove the category at the bottom of the page please? We use it to list the cases on the checkuser pages. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I want to get this resolved. If checkuser is an appropriate way to deal with this user, then let's do it now. But if procedure/policy/community standards, et al, say that I should wait a few days after opening the case with WP:SSP, then so be it. What do you think? --Otheus 14:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite new myself :) Keep in mind that if I am correct, the IP logs are kept for 30 days. I see you listed it meanwhile. Good luck with the request :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So when I want to re-list it, I simply re-add the category back to the page? --Otheus 14:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you want to relist it, simply edit the case you opened to add a new section at the top, and you relist the page at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Pending. Checkusers prefer having all the cases concerning an individual on the same page. I hope that helps! -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try this ...

Hi ... I've passively noticed your notes to SlimVirgin's page and just now on Jimmy Wales' page asking for admin guidance with something. I suggest trying User:Chrislk02. He's a relatively new admin, but, at least for me, has been helpful, prompt and cheerful each time I've asked. If he doesn't work out for you for some reason, you may find this list helpful. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder ^talk 00:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Otheus 00:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will gladly look into it, however it will be tommorow morning before I get a chance to look at it. Is that ok? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. I can go to bed now (1:56am here). --Otheus 00:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks for being available, Chris. Good night, all! Keesiewonder ^talk 00:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad I can help! (Thats what I am here for). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: checkuser on FMNF

Hi, I don't think we clerks have the power to escalate a case, I asked for more input from my fellow clerks though :). For your other question, I have previously seen people part of an investigation commenting on the case talk page. But I don't think it changes anything on the investigation, if the case is bogus it will be rejected :). Cheers. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Langan

Thanks for your compliment about my sense of humor. Thanks also for your contributions to the entry on Chris Langan. As you probably know, this has been a fraught entry for a long time. I have only recently begun to contribute to the entry, but I think positively. If you look at my user page, you will see a copy of my first comment on the entry, and below that a set of links to what I consider to be important edits and comments in the recent history of the entry. I think that together they form a clear picture of what has been occurring with this entry. The recent input by yourself and NightSky has assisted a difficult process in recent days. If you know all this already, forgive me for mentioning it. And if you don't know it already, forgive me for pointing you toward quite a long series of edits that probably won't be that enjoyable to read (except for my own clear and pleasant prose of course). Thanks again. FNMF 02:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and while you're waiting for the edit wars to resume, why don't you take a glance over my Talk page to see whose feathers I've ruffled. Recognize any names? No reply needed :) --Otheus 02:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I noticed. FNMF 02:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to realise that you had filed a checkuser request about me several days ago. And a little disappointed that you did not inform me of this. I did not really understand why you mentioned in the request that I had left a comment for Jimmy Wales, as though this was evidence of some bad intent. And I would say that Mr Wales more than agreed "to some extent." His intervention was quick, clear and decisive (about a matter that had been ongoing for many months, and about which I had been told by other editors that I was disruptive because I was putting arguments with no validity). And even though in his first comment on the matter he indicated that he was not convinced the matter was libelous, only that it was blatant original research, in his follow-up comments he made it clear he considered the matter non-notable, and that there was absolutely no justification for its inclusion. I can only hope that, whatever doubts you had, they are now allayed. As I have mentioned on other occasions, I have no connection to Mr Langan, am not a proponent of his ideas, am not a proponent of ID, and only know of Mr Langan through the media (particularly the Errol Morris program). I am actually surprised they allowed the request, given that no evidence of bad behaviour was given, but now that you have the results, I hope you feel better about my contributions. FNMF 03:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if a user "left the project," this would appear to be due to the intervention of Mr Wales, not my own intervention. I note also that he has since "returned" after a very brief departure. His being upset by Mr Wales' intervention is due, in my opinion, to the difficulty he has in understanding the policy on original research. Just clarifying this matter a little further for you. FNMF 03:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize for the affront, and thank you for responding civilly. I was not assuming bad faith, I assure you, as I will try to explain: The timing of the request was critical. These "checkuser logs" are kept for a maximum of 30 days, and Asmodeus's last post had been 27 or so days. Guettarda and FeloniousMonk seemed to have disappeared during those days, and posts by IP users which I assumed to be either or both of them showed very strong emotions and lack of clear-thinking, and so I surmised that it might go unnoticed that a checkuser might still be useful in establishing sockpuppetry. Normally, I would have done more analysis, but as your posting history had been brief, I would have had to read quite a number of diffs to suspect a connection. I didn't have that time. So I filed the request as is.

Given that there are various mechanisms for resolving disputes within the wikipedia community, and given that Jimbo is enormously popular and as founding father, his comments are watched and considered by so many, making a personal appeal to Jimbo about a particular issue in a particular article was bad form. Note, "bad form" does not mean not in good faith or wrong. It's like being at the opera house and in the middle of a sopranic marathon, you let rip a loud fart. Okay, maybe that's not a good analogy. But such a thing can be disruptive to the community. If you proved to be a sockpuppet for Asmodeous, the ramifications would have been completely disruptive -- more so than the User:Essjay fiasco, I think. But at least then it would be out in the open. By contrast, if nothing had been done, some of these other users' suspicions would increase, and I could foresee the strong possibility of Jimbo's credibility being undermined by the innuendo that he had helped overrule consensus for the sake of a suspected sockpuppet -- allegations which could never be disproven or answered. So I gambled and filed the case. And braced for the storm.

But oddly, you're not Asmodeus. And I'm glad for it. This means, among other things, that Jimbo can continue to be Jimbo. And you can continue to be you. Just remember that some of these guys take everything real personally. Oh, and oddly enough, after filing the check user, I found my name right below yours, filed by none other than mister FeloniousMonk.

--Otheus 03:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: JS talk page

Hi! Sorry for the confusion; I mentioned OTRS in my edit summary but forgot that it's not a well-known acronym, hehe (check out OTRS or meta:OTRS for more information). There was an issue that arose whereby sensitive information needed to be immediately removed from plain view. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Langan

Agreed, thx `'mikka 16:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Nelly Furtado

"Crumbsucker, I'm directing this message on your talk page, because you are the only one who is aguing against including Portuguese in the lead paragraph." Not true, read the talk page.

You are right. I thought User:musicpvm was arguing that her ethnicity was notable. May I move the rest of this discussion to the Furtado talk page? --Otheus 11:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Crumbsucker 12:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date links

Hi! Thanks for the contact. No problem... I'm using an automated program which doesn't let me put in my own edit summary.

I've been using the program for quite some time, but I got hold of it the same time everybody else did when there was a debate about this (I haven't got the link I'm afraid! It's been so long!).

Date links are fine, so long as it spells out a full date, such as February 23 1984. It is not suitable to link stand-alone dates such as February, 19th century or 1901. That is, unless the article is about time or timeframes, or really requires the date to establish WP:CONTEXT (Back To The Future for example).

The consensus was based upon a combination of WP:CONTEXT, WP:DATE and WP:BTW. Featured articles use this system, but it is unused for the most part of Wikipedia, due to people linking years at the first chance they get! Hope that helps somewhat. Jhamez84 10:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply and for the links. I'm partial toward creating them because it allows automatic creation of back-links from that year to the article. Further, from the guidelines you provided, it's still not clear to me why linking years is incorrect (or correct). Currently, the manual of style on years does not address the matter of whether these links should be there or should be removed. Also, currently, WP:CONTEXT#Dates says about stand-alone years:

Stand alone years do not need to be linked but some users prefer it, and some users prefer to link (with a piped link) to articles formatted as "year in subject" such as 1441 in art, 1982 in film, and 18th century in United States history.

But do not need to be linked is different than should be removed. I don't feel compelled to revert such links, but might I suggest you see if a newer version of this tool has an option to disable that particular feature, in cases where it might not be seen as helpful? --Otheus 10:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MFD

As you requested, I have closed this MFD and added the Speedy deletion tag to the page. An administrator should be executing the request shortly. Regards, Navou ^banter / _contribs 12:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Gates of Ishtar

Thanks, Leon. Your comments moved to Talk:Gates of Ishtar. --Otheus 07:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

League of Copyeditors

Thanks for your message, Otheus. I hope I joined the League properly! Peace. (MuzikJunky 05:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

lost password

sadly, i never gave wikipedia my email address... hopefully my friend will remember one of these days and i can switch back! Calliopejen1 22:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah, that's a problem. You might consider copying your old user page and talk to your new one, and inserting "#redirects" as appropriate. If you don't know how to do this, I can do it for you, with your permission and blessing. --Otheus 22:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Locked In Time question

Good afternoon!

I made a mistake in adding back those categories. I have replaced them with Category:Young adult novels . I've been working on this list. I simply wasn't thinking. My apologies. --JustAGal 18:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dowsing

Yeah, I know. See the note I left a few days ago on Pjacobi's talk page. — BillC^talk 16:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you keep an eye on his sandbox page and my comments. User talk:68.184.6.80/sandbox/Dowsing. --Otheus 16:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LoCE proofreading

I've noticed you have become involved with WP:LoCE, which is great. However, I wanted to point out to you the "Proofread complete" section; when you complete a proofread on a copyedited article (as you did for Jericho, Kansas and Waite Hockin Stirling, please make sure you copy the item from the "Ready for final proofread" into the "Proofread complete" section. I have done this for you for Jericho, Kansas, but would appreciate it if you could do it for the other article. If you are unsure how to go about doing this, there is a list of instructions at the top of that section, or feel free to ask. Thanks! —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 21:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Perhaps the League would like to work on making their instructions a tad bit more obvious and not burrying them under subheadings of other sections--Otheus 21:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I didn't write the instructions, but I'll see what I can do about making them more visible. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 21:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davkal

Not exactly accurate. Davkal said explicitly that it was "my" behavior he was reporting. And I did not say that he made legal threats, I said that he borderlined on doing so with the excessive claims regarding libel and the chilling effect he was attempting to impose. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 23:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see further commentary on my talk page: ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we ran into a miscommunication. I wasn't saying Davkal actually violated NLT, or I would have blocked him immediately (as a law student, legal threats are the thing I take seriously on wikipedia), but instead I said his comments bordered on it. My point appears to be proved by his alleged contacting of the foundation. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 15:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Participles

Snigger. Words are fun to play with! Thanks again for your work on M Schumacher. Cheers. 4u1e 06:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request For Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/David Irving, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidudeman (talk • contribs) 22:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]