User talk:Step13thirteen

November 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to The Streets, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. faithless (^speak) 18:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

The Streets

First, you will notice that it was not I who reverted you, but another editor. Your edits (even if they're well-intentioned) are not encyclopedic, and will continue to be removed. Do not threaten me, as I have done nothing wrong. Perhaps it's time to step back and consider what you're doing. Take it to the talk page and try to gain consensus for your change if you feel it is legitimate. Please don't keep adding material which several others have removed; you've been warned, and may be blocked in the future. Thank you. faithless (^speak) 00:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I stopped reading as soon as you accused me of sockpuppetry; this is not only laughable, but quite insulting. And considering that you apparently have two other sockpuppets, incredibly ironic. As for the article, you will be reverted; if not by me, then by someone else. In fact, this has already happened.

As for the article, why should the word "tender" be included? What other article is written similarly? Who describes the age as tender? You? Guess what? That's original research. It is your opinion that the age of five is tender. Even if it is, why should it be included? It shouldn't: this is an encyclopedia; I daresay you wouldn't be able to find another encyclopedia anywhere which describes someone "at the the tender age of --." Your edits have been challenged by other editors; the onus is now on you to take it to the talk page and try to convince others why it should be included. This is how Wikipedia works. You obviously don't understand policy, nor are you able to hold a civil conversation, so I will only discuss this further if you bring the subject up on the article's talk page. If you revert it again without explaining your reasoning and without consensus, I will report you for vandalism. Don't bother responding on my talk page, please take this to the Talk:The Streets. faithless (^speak) 01:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"Tender" not only is original research, but it also defies neutral point of view. You WILL be reported 82.0.206.215 if you keep it up.-Yamanbaiia (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Tender

As demanded (not very wikipedian of you, please remember wp:civ) I have put this on

This edit is "not encyclopedic"? Would you care to define "encyclopedic"? Would you care to state the wiki policy that I have breached? I suggest that you can't. The fact is that "tender" is a proper and correct word to use here. M-W definition 1 and 2 of the word:

1 a: having a soft or yielding texture : easily broken, cut, or damaged : delicate, fragile <tender feet> b: easily chewed : succulent 2 a: physically weak : not able to endure hardship b: immature, young <children of tender age> c: incapable of resisting cold : not hardy <tender perennials>

Can you tell me of a child of 5 who does not conform to either definition of "tender"? Does this word add "POV"? Is it original research? (in fact, the whole sentence appears to be original research) Why are you inflicting your inherent biases against the word tender on this article?

Further to the above argument, I am going to add some contributions. I have been told that the word "tender" is not NPOV. I ask if there is anyone on this page who would argue that the age of 5 is anything that is the opposite of "tender", as defined in Merriam Webster. It would be difficult for you all to disagree with this, as it means "young".

I am also told that it is "original research" - the sentence paraphrases the original source - I just further paraphrase it further - the only other option is to copy it word for word, and this is copyright violation. In fact the sentence assumes that skinners parents bought him the keyboard, a fact not in evidence - this is the true original researchl.

Someone show me a specific wiki policy against the use of adjectives, and I will back down. 213.235.24.138 (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you have violated one of Wikipedia's most important rules: WP:3RR.-Yamanbaiia (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't violated the "three revert rule" - that needs to be done 3 times in 24 hours. Anyway, I added it in - you are the one doing the reverting. You will, everytime I add it, have reverted it more times than me, and will thus be breaching the "three revert rule" before I have.82.0.206.215 (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, "tender" was removed 4 times in less than 24 hours by three different editors: [1], [2], [3], [4] and again 5 hours later [5]Yamanbaiia (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is the why I keep removing it:

• It's original research because who said that he was tender? i know that, in theory, every 5 year old is "tender, loving, gentle and sweet", but maybe he was not, maybe he was a very twisted child, so, unless you have a source (?) that explicitly says that when he was 5 he was either tender, loving, gentle or sweet, it's OR.

Who said anything about "loving, gentle or sweet" - those are subjective terms. Tender means "young". The article said he was 5 - 5 is young. I am therefore paraphrasing. Paraphrasing is not only acceptable, it is neccesary on wiki to avoid copyright violations. Therefore, this is not "original research".

• It's definetely not neutral for two main reasons: not everyone considers 5 year olds to be tender, actually some of them can be quite nasty, besides there are loads of "children-haters" out there that would never describe a child as tender. The other reason is that, as ridiculous as it sounds, maybe a 3 year old will come and read the article and (for him) a 5 year old is strong and wise, but not tender. What if i considered all +80 to be "tender"? it wouldn't be appropiate for me to add that in an article would it? it's the same thing here, even if most -5 don't read Wikipedia. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, "tender" means "young" - youth does not preclude nastyness. Children haters can hate children all they want, but they can't say that children are not young. Children, almost by definition, are "young". You are correct, your "3 year old child" argument is ridiculous. Your "80 year olds are tender" argument falls down in that 80 year olds are not young - they are old. I would expect to see an exceptional reliable source describe a 5 year old as "strong and wise" before allowing it to stay in wiki - wiki does not take into account the opinions of 3 years olds (none of whom have been published, so far as I know, and certainly not to the level that would be demanded of an encyclopedia). Similarly, I would expect university level material to be used as a source before describing an 80 year old as "tender". I would accept "tender" for children under 10 (maybe older...) "middle-aged" for people in their 40s and "pensionable" for those over 65. Those would be objective facts. I hope you see the difference. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop citing policies which you don't understand. I have in no way been uncivil to you. You have been reverted by several different editors, and haven't provided any good reason why Mike Skinner should be described as "tender." Why is it not encyclopedic? Have you ever read an encyclopedia which describes someone in a similar manner? There are at least tens of thousands of biographical articles on Wikipedia alone - do any of them use such language? If your edit is legitimate, others will back you up in this discussion. As the content is disputed, I implore you not to reinsert it until such a time when a consensus is reached. Also, I would suggest you create n account, to ease communication. faithless (^speak) 23:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I fully understand the policies. It seems you do not. If you can find me anything on any of them that rejects what I am saying, I will accept what you have to say. Please post the appropriate bits in here. You have threatened to have me banned, several times - not civil (this is my only post in this article - ever read "don't bite the newbies"?) Mike Skinner should be described as "tender" because he was (at the age of 5). I have read much of wiki, and can find numerous examples of commonly used objective adjectives (try saying that 10 times quickly after 3 beers....) being placed in articles. I have even found one which finds a famous actress to have "a tiny face". Tender means "young", and if an encyclopedia can't describe a young child as "young", then I suggest that it is doing Language a disservice. It's like Newspeak in Orwells 1984, trying to reduce the english language down to the absolute essentials, removing all extraneous words, but doing it to the point that it borders on facism. This is not the aim of any encyclopedia. There is nothing "unencyclopedic" about the word tender - you just don't like it. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

On my talk page you claimed to be "an experienced Wikipedian," yet here you say you are a newbie. You can't be both. If you tell me which you really are, I will treat you accordingly. Giving you an appropriate warning that your current path will lead to a block is the exact opposite of incivility. As for Mike Skinner being tender at the age of five: can you prove it? Remember, here at Wikipedia we are concerned with verifiability, not truth. Also, please read this section of the same policy. Wikipedia strives for brevity; extraneous words and phrases should be avoided when possible. I admit that you are right about one thing: I don't like it. I think it reads more like a press release or a biography than an encyclopedia entry. Was he tender at that age? Sure, probably (though tender has multiple meanings, including ticklish; does that mean that I am at the tender age of 24?). If your aim is to describe him as young, mission accomplished. A five year old is young; there is no need for superfluous words here. Likening your fellow editors to Big Brother can be construed as being uncivil. faithless (^speak) 19:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I am a "newbie" to this article, not to wikipedia. I can prove that Mike Skinner was tender at the age of 5 - tender means "young" and 5 is young. what more proof do you need? The content of the first section is partly verified by the article. I add in the word tender, which does not violate the verifiability policy. Other parts (such as his parents buying him the keyboard) are not verified by the source. As I say, what you like is not what forms wiki policy. You admit that he was tender, so what is the problem, apart from you not liking it? Many words that are used have multiple meanings - current, block, press to name just a few that you use. Wiki is littered with "superflous" words - once again, I state that this is the beauty of the English Language, and attempting to remove all such words (ie adjectives) is a form of thought control that borders on Orwellian. It is not a criticism of you but a comment on your misunderstanding of the policies of wiki (which can certainly be considered "wikilawyering" and remember that there is no policy on wiki which is 100% unbreakable...). If you construe this "constructive criticism" as being uncivil, then perhaps you need a break? It's only the internet - no need to take it so personally. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It is you who continues to throw around charges of incivility, not me. However, accusing others of sockpuppetry (laughable, considering the accuser) and of being Orwellian is indeed violating WP:CIVIL. It's clear we don't agree; let's sit back and wait for others to chime in. So far, no one else thinks that it is appropriate to describe him in the way you have. If this changes, so be it, but until then it should stay as it is. faithless (^speak) 21:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Anon is right, there's no WP:YOUCANTUSETENDER and sometimes it's ok to ignore all rules; but then again sometimes (like here) consensus has to be reached between the editors so as to stop the edit war, the accusations and the useless discussion; and right now is two against one. Tender just sounds awfull, and by the way, i would like to see the article of the "tiny face" actress, so i can remove that. Cheers. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I hate to get involved in an argument, but just for consensus' sake, I agree that "tender" isn't appropriate for the article. CherryFlavoredAntacid (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not a sock-puppet. I have two accounts - one at home and one at work. I make no secret of this (it has said so on both IP addresses talk pages since I have posted on this article...) Unfortunately, you are misunderstanding the meaning of the word "consensus", both in the wiki sense and in the true life sense. It means we get to a point where every-one has agreed that the out-come does not need changing, where we all agree to abide by it. This is normally reached by negotiation. It cannot be reached (in real life or in wiki) by way of a majority vote. Your vote is pointless. I do not agree to it (unless it goes my way) and don't have to to keep in line with wiki policy. This means you best do some negotiating. The usual place to start would be an alternative word. 213.235.24.138 (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my poor choice of wording; I didn't mean to insinuate that you were acting against policy in any way by using different IPs, and will be more careful with my choice of wording in the future. You apparently edit from at least four different IP addresses; not that there is a problem with that. I implore you, as I'm sure others would, to create an account to make discussions easier. With all due respect, I fear that it is you who are misunderstanding the word "consensus." If you still feel strongly about this, I'd recommend getting an outside opinion. The current opinion is 3-1; this is "general agreement by most of those concerned," and therefore a consensus. I don't think that this is likely to change. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 20:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:PRACTICAL, specifically the section that states

"So in summary, wikipedia decision making is not based on formal vote counting. This means that polling alone is not considered a means of decision-making, and it is certainly not a binding vote, and you do not need to abide by polls per se. Polling is generally discouraged, except in specialized processes such as AFD."

Also http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Voting_is_evil

As someone who works in grasstoots organisations that exclusively use consensus for all decision making, I think I probably have a better idea of how it works than you all combined. General agreement is not total agreement, which is what is called for. In fact wiki only works by everyone concerned having agreement not to change the article, at which point, consensus is reached. You are in the negotiating stage of consensus building. So, with all due respect, I suggest that you look for an alternative to the word "tender" and we can get discussing. Otherwise you are circumventing the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and this will create a flamewar, something I have tried my best to avoid. 213.235.24.138 (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Not only are you wrong, but you are being insulting and condescending. You shouldn't assume things, specifically about people you don't know. I would like to see what dictionary you have which defines consensus as a total agreement. Also, no one is voting here; please note that no one has expressed support for your position that an adjective is needed to show that a five year old is young. I have recommended that you seek dispute resolution, and this remains your best course of action. Please pursue this course of action rather than replying to this comment. We've discussed it to death at this point, and nothing positive is to be gained from our continued arguing. faithless (^speak) 18:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Merriam Webster, Consensus 1, general agreement : unanimity 2, group solidarity in sentiment and belief".

I'm not sure what I have done to condescend you, or what I have assumed about you. I do know that you have formally withdrawn from the wiki consensus decision making process (which you don't seem to understand, or to even be willing to look into, but I guess that is your choice...) There was a vote - one which I am not bound by. I am therefore going to continue to add the word tender. If you don't like it, I suggest you re-engage in the consensus building process, or you go for dispute resolution. I have done everything that I can to get you to understand my position, and you have not budged an inch. You are now "refusing to talk to me". I have no problem with this, and thus have no dispute with you. I shall continue to add the word. Feel free to chat to me about it.

Block for revert warring to include the word "tender"

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for revert warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Addhoc 20:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock|no three revert rule violation - 2 reverts in 2 days is not an edit war - discussion on talk page was ignored by other users - I acted in good faith by engaging in discussion and was told that there was no more discussion to be had - other users stated that they had no intention of discussing the edit further, even refusing to negotiate}} Block appears to have expired. Try clearing out cache (see WP:TWINKLE#Installation step 3), and editing WP:SANDBOX). The Evil Spartan 05:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikilawyering

This isn't so egregious that I'm going to raise a stink, but you really shouldn't have done it [6]. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do with you?

Really? Make an account. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Craig. I pay much more attention to people with (perhaps totally fictitious) names than to people with just IP addresses. Most importantly, you'l distinguish yourself from other users of that address. PhGustaf (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I will do soon. I have one, but have lost the details and always forget to sign in. 82.0.206.215 15:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page The Streets worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Yamanbaiia (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your Edits To Alcoholics Anonymous: [7] [8]

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Alcoholics Anonymous. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. — Craigtalbert 15:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism to Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous [9]

As stated before, my contributions to the talk page are valid. If you keep deleting them, I will report you for vandalism. Deleting talk page contributions contradicts Wikipedia:Vandalism, as per the following paragraph "Discussion page vandalism Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., is generally considered vandalism. An obvious exception is moving posts to a proper place (e.g. protection requests to WP:RFPP). Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion."

Please do not do this again without discussing it with me. I have very little patience and will be reporting it as vandalism in the future. 213.235.24.138 11:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you what I told you before: report me, see what happens. Until then, it's my opinion that you are not using the talk page appropriately, and I will revert per Wikipedia is not a forum. -- Craigtalbert 12:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but blanking talk pages is vandalism, which kind of supercedes the three revert rule (I am sure that it doesn't apply in cases of vandalism....), so this kind of doesn't matter.

I am more than happy for arbitration. Basically, anything which will help me get some more sources allowed into the AA thing (and thus reach "concensus", in the true sense, as well as the wiki sense) is fine with me. 213.235.24.138 12:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Blanking talk pages is vandalism. Removing violations of WP:FORUM and WP:TALK, isn't. I have seen you "report" me, and I've noticed that the admins have ignored it. It seems there's not a lot of support for your argument. -- Craigtalbert 13:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The Streets

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page The Streets worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. faithless (^speak) 11:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to The Streets, you will be blocked from editing. faithless (^speak) 20:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

WP:EL

Can you please discuss the removal of the more revealed link before removing it again? It actually does not contradict anything in WP:EL. In fact, WP:EL states explicitly that there should be a link to an "alternate viewpoint" on controversial subject matters. Thanks. 82.19.66.37 11:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It actually talks about avoiding undue weight. Additionally states external links should be to "sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." More revealed doesn't count. You are effectively vandalizing the article, and next time I will report it as such. If you continue to violate WP:EL your IP will be blocked. — Craigtalbert 19:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You fail to say why "more revealed" doesn't count. These published books were written by notable authors and experts in the subject of addiction, and opponents of AA, including Stanton Peele. It most certainly does have more detail than could be put into the article. Avoiding undue weight in said policy is to do with "number of links", as opposed to "POV" of links, especially on controversial subjects such as this. In fact, having only one (promotional) link on the AA page gives undue weight to the "pro AA" camp. I am struggling not to become frustrated at you accusing me of vandalism, but am also trying to stick to WP:DR, so I don't want an argument. I don't think that any wiki admins will be overly concerned if I choose to make a (much needed) edit, in line with wiki policy. I shall return the link. If you feel like replacing it with a better "anti-AA" link, I will be more than happy to discuss it with you on the AA talk page. In the mean time, I would be interested to hear more information as to why you see "more revealed" as a bad link for the page.... 82.19.66.37 20:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable people can disagree. But I believe WP:EL is pretty clear in this case. I will report continued violations of these policies as vandalism. — Craigtalbert 22:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am equally sure that WP:EL is very clear about this. So the link stays, until you find a more suitable one. I am not overly worried about being reported for vandalism, as it isn't vandalism. 82.19.66.37 20:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Slow Motion Revert Warring

Of your last article edits, 11 of 13 of them are to insert the link to the More Revealed site. I have given you the strong advice that it is likley not an excellent external link, and that a more appropriate external link could, and should, be found. You have not attempted to find a different external link, nor have you engaged other editors in the search for a more appropriate external link on the talk page of the article. You alledged on my talk page that you "did link to the peele site," but I found no evidence of you doing such from this IP address. I'm loath to do it, but could you please read the conflict of interest policy again, at WP:COI, and strongly consider if continuing to engage in a slow motion revert war to insert what, to many eyes, must appear at this point to be a site related to you is appropriate? Thanks. PouponOnToast 21:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the site isn't related to me. And I did put in the Stanton Peele link. Indeed there is a large section related to it on the AA talk page. I would like the orange papers, but am imformed that if it is anonymous then it is not a suitable link. I am, as ever, open to suggestion about a new "negative" AA link, but think that one of those three are best. I'm not sure how the site could be considered to be considered to be related to me. I think that is something that you have perhaps made up to "discredit" the link..... 82.19.66.37 20:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Alcoholics Anonymous: [10] [11]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Craigtalbert 23:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have read most of that stuff. I am pretty sure that I am not contradicting it. I think that you are. 82.19.66.37 20:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Alcoholics Anonymous [12] [13] - second official warning

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. — Craigtalbert 04:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Removing comments from talk page

I would like to see some form of precedent which shows that this is acceptable. Really, if you don't like what I say, and want to disagree, then I guess that is your business. When I add a comment about sources that can be used in an article, and somebody removes them on extremely spurious grounds, I personally consider this to be "vandalism", and will report it as such next time.

At the top of Talk:Alcoholics_Anonymous you'll there is a specific notice that wikipedia is not forum. The articles talk page is not for flame wars, trolling, or for off topic discussion. I will continue to remove attempts to divert discussion on the talk page away from the article. -- Craigtalbert 20:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As stated before, if you remove my contributions from the talk page, all of which have been related to content that is acceptable in the article, I will report you to wiki admins. Please consider this to be my only "official warning". 82.19.66.37 16:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

They haven't been related to the article. Report me, see what happens. In the mean time, I'm going to continue to remove irrelevant comments. — Craigtalbert 18:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Guidelines

Please take a look at WP:FORUM, WP:TALK, WP:ATTACK, WP:CIVIL, WP:DE and the response to the 3O request. -- Craigtalbert 17:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, do not remove my contributions to the talk page. I will report it as vandalism. If you don't want to discuss archieving the talk-page, then I suggest you dont do it. It's called consensus, and is something that should be achieved before you take such actions. I have read all of those policys. Not sure why you left that message on my talk page. 82.19.66.37 14:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that many of your contributions distract from useful work on the article. If you followed the policies you've read, I think you'd share me concern about keeping the talk page on topic. Here's an olive branch: what would it take to get you to keep your contributions on the topic of the article rather than pro- and anti- AA debate and commenting on other editors? -- Craigtalbert 19:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh, all of my contributions have been related to content on the article. It is also vandalism. Once again, I will report it as such. 82.19.66.37 21:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC) -- Craigtalbert 22:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know you've been reporting it as vandalism. I've also noticed that your reports have been ignored. Why do you think that is? -- Craigtalbert 22:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Monster Munch

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, 82.19.66.37! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule petitiononline\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! AntiSpamBot 18:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to Alcoholics Anonymous:

Your recent edit to Alcoholics Anonymous (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either test edits, vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II 19:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Alcoholics Anonymous "Truce"

Working on the AA article definitely eats up a lot of time, and seems to yield very little in terms of results/changes. You and I are in agreement about that. I also get the impression you're an atheist, like me. So we do have somethings in common.

My general feeling is there's too much back and forth on the talk page and too little actual research. There's too much discussion about each piece of added/removed content. A lot of the shit that gets added are from things like the addiction counselors magazine which may not be a completely useless source, but there are obviously better sources out there that would be harder to argue with.

We could stop a lot of the back and forth about More Revealed, the Orange Papers, magazines, newspapers, and even citations from AA literature if we made an effort to stick towards writing the article based on peer-reviewed research.

Also, in the spirit of cooperating, I'll tip my hand to you a little bit. I'm all for people getting together to solve their common problems. I'm a humanist first, and an atheist second. Anything that helps people is great, I don't care if it involves the word 'God' or not. I'm with you about not forcing people to attend AA, NA, etc. as a condition of their parole or court rulings. I know there's a ton of people in Twelve-step groups who also suffer from something like True-believer syndrome, and more than that I know of many people in twelve step groups who have tried coerce people in to other religious beliefs. The disease model of addiction has it's failings (as do the others). But, I also don't think you should throw the baby out with the bathwater. -- Craigtalbert 00:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Account creation skilz

Thank you. -- Craigtalbert 21:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

See Sharp

Good work. What's the over/under on someone whacking it out? PhGustaf (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Do you work for See Sharp Press? -- Craigtalbert (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I win the under. PhGustaf (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

David, as you're well aware, I am employed by the organisation on my email address (take out the "s.rees@" and replace it with a "www." - you'll see) I also thought that we had come to some sort of understanding re see sharp, fringe theory and notability. looks like another long and tedious debate. ho hum.

Thanks phGustaf, nice to know I have someone partly on my side....Step13thirteen (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

February 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Alcoholics Anonymous has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Cometstyles 13:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)