User talk:Ohiostandard

Hi, and welcome to my user talk page! I really like hearing from other editors, so feel free to add your comments. I also welcome criticism, but please do your best to remain polite and try hard to assume good faith, just as you would if we were talking face to face. Comments that ignore these fundamental community standards, or comments from editors who've shown a pattern of ignoring them in the past may be deleted without reply. Also, if I left you a message on your talk page, please answer on your talk page. If you leave me a message here, I'll answer here on my talk page. This keeps a discussion in one place, so much easier to follow. Thanks! Ohiostandard (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links of US univs

Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 07:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

My editor review

Thank you for your kind words at the review! I appreciate them more than I can adequately express -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Thanks again for your dedication to improving the encyclopedia. Ohiostandard (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Nina Assimakopoulos

Thanks for the message. Happy to help out - I cannot remember how that one ended up on my watchlist, but now that it's there it might as well stay. Nice work with the notability discussion on the talk page, very well reasoned and exactly on point. I wish there were more editors round here who took the time to do such research and explain it so well! And thanks for the offer of nominating me for an Rfa - you are not the first to ask, and I think I will probably get round to it a little later this year. The problem is dedicating the appropriate amount of time to the process, and at the moment things IRL are a little hectic! – ukexpat (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for your kind words. I do understand "a little hectic!" I'm nothing like so prolific as you are here, and I receive only sporadic requests for assistance from new users. But I often hear the siren call, e.g. "I'll just look into this one small thing," only to look up a few hours later and realize I've spent more time than I'd intended. But it does seem to me that BLPs merit special care, and it's certainly a pleasant way to beguile a few hours, besides. Thanks again, Ohiostandard (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Fastflow (computing)

I saw your posting at ANI, where you expressed caution about possible OUTING. Since the creator of this article is making no effort to keep his identity private here, I suggest that you go ahead and offer this matter for review, especially at WP:COIN. (User:Aldinuc admits here that he is the designer of Fastflow). My own opinion is that the article needs reliable sources to show that other people have taken notice of the technology. If no such evidence can be found, an WP:AFD may eventually be needed. The fact that the creator is editing the article on his own software may not be a fatal objection if he will cooperate in finding the needed sources. I also don't like his creating links to Fastflow in other articles, which he has done on a large scale starting May 17. Nobody has posted anything other than templated messages at User talk:Aldinuc in the last several months. The possibilities for discussion are far from exhausted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

( Please note: The posting at ANI referred to above is now here. Ohiostandard (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC) )

Thanks very much for your comment, EdJohnston. I see I was too hasty to mark the ANI discussion as "resolved" in just 50 minutes, after only one editor had replied. Sorry I didn't give you and other administrators a more reasonable time to comment. Thanks, too, for the link to Aldinuc's disclosure that he was a designer of what we're all calling "Fastflow", for now. I'd missed that. I certainly agree with you that this merits additonal discussion, and do intend to follow up on the matter. I've been a little slow to do that, but I promise I'll get to it soon. Best, Ohiostandard (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply

Thanks for your comprehensive analysis on the sentence "I didn't disagree with you." It helps me a lot. I am curious to know whether you are a mathematian:) Best.--刻意(Kèyì) 22:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You are most welcome. I enjoyed the process very much, so thank you for the opportunity, and for your kind words, also. Because I like to keep a discussion on just one page, though, I have copied what you wrote, above, to your talk page. I have also replied further, there. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

HD reply

I've been helping at the help desk for going on five years, and I think your response to my post was one of the nicest I've ever seen.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

So I guess this means my dairy products will be okay for awhile? ;-) Thank you for taking time to post to my talk page, in addition to providing so clear and concise an explanation at the help desk. I appreciate the courtesy. I'm surprised to hear that my words of appreciation were at all unusual there. Perhaps new users assume that help desk volunteers are paid Wikipedia employees? Whatever the reason, it always surprises me to find that many users fail to recognize and acknowledge how much dedication and work from others their own ability to contribute actually rests on.

I often hear Wikipedians express pride about their high edit counts, the many articles they've created, & etc., and that's understandable. But I do wish it were more generally recognized that this wonderful place would necessarily implode of its own weight in the absence of so much behind-the-scenes generosity. And I wish more contributors here would follow your lead and help out in the vital infrastructure work that's required to keep things here running well. It seems to me that your own work here is exemplary in this way.

By "exemplary" I mean:

• You create compelling articles. ( I'd very much like to make the acquaintance of a few Goodfellow's Tree-kangaroos. I had no idea such a delightful animal existed. And your article about the film Anguish scared me all by itself, without even seeing the movie! )

• You help new users with an admirable patience and painstaking clarity, and

• You also work to keep the engines running smoothly behind the scenes in a score of underappreciated but crucial ways.

I've thought several times previously of saying some of this, but I hadn't interacted with you directly before, and it would have been too much of a liberty, coming from a complete stranger. But I'm very glad to have an appropriate opportunity to say so now. So thank you, again, for your extraordinary dedication to this remarkable enterprise, and for your very generous work to sustain and improve it so consistently and for so long. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome

I'm glad to help. SharedIP templates are easy to add if you install the "Friendly" gadget. I love Twinkle, Friendly and refTools, they really make life here a lot easier. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

My Confirmed Status???

I see you stopped my confirmed status due to my actions, but the problems on the other case has been solved so what of my rights??? (BlackImperial (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC))

Oh, sorry about that. ( Explosion of lightning and deafening clap of thunder, here. ) You're now confirmed. Is that better? ;-)  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You might also like to read Fastily's comment about your request on WP:Requests for permissions, the part where he says, "You are autoconfirmed." If you don't know what that means, enter the text wp:autoconfirmed into the search box you'd use to search for an article. The "wp" prefix tells the search function to search not in mainspace, where all our articles are stored, but to search in the space where all the rules and resources and policies and pages meant for editors are stored. Try it with other words or terms you don't understand, too, e.g. try wp:indent, or wp:agf, or wp:watchlist, or wp:reliable, and see what happens. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess I drew the wrong admin

Reported our friend(s) here. Each was blocked for two weeks, again.

"I went to the police, like a good American. These two boys were brought to trial. The judge sentenced them to three years in prison -- suspended sentence. Suspended sentence! They went free that very day! I stood in the courtroom like a fool. And those two bastard, they smiled at me. Then I said to my wife, "for justice, we must go to Don Corleone.""

Maybe next time. --CliffC (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes; I'll never understand why WP is so soft on vandalism. How many times would a person be allowed to go into a library and vandalize the books before he was banned? Yet users here get ten, twenty, thirty chances to reform. I could understand it if these IP addresses were dynamic, but they're obviously static, have obviously been assigned to the same person for something like three years. Another user suggested some time ago that we consider contacting a public liason officer or some such in the vicinity ... I know it would require great care to do that correctly ( eg under wp:abuse ), but I'm beginning to think that might be the only way to end this clown's very long vandalism spree. Thanks for the quotation, though; it makes me feel better. :-) And thanks very much for making the report, too. I suppose we'll be back in touch on this in two weeks. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest filing a WP:SPI. You could resubmit all your data there. There is a chance of a longer block (up to six months, I think) if you could include enough diffs to show that the IPs are static and that abuse has been continuing for a long time. You can't expect any deep analysis when you submit at AIV. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, EdJohnston, and thanks for looking in from time to time, as well; I appreciate it. Each reporting page has its own "character", I find, but I hadn't been aware of this difference; it's good to know of it. Can we still file an SPI at this point? At least three admins were aware of the IP using one of his addresses to evade a block ( see ANI report here and admin talk page here). I was probably at blame for being too verbose in that first one; I tried to do too much with the ANI report, and that made it harder to follow than was strictly necessary. But I'm concerned that since it's already been through ANI once recently, that people might get annoyed with a new report, at SPI. Also, although this person did use his IP to evade a block (and was sanctioned for that at ANI), I don't think he's really trying to conceal the connection between 138.162.8.57 and 138.162.8.58 in his most recent offenses. Comments? Thanks again,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody will complain about an SPI filing; it helps keep the records straight. In your submission you could note that you are asking for a longer block than the ones previously given, based on the more complete story you are providing. You can notify the previous blocking admin if you wish. It seems that you possess more background knowledge of the issue than you gave at ANI, and the SPI report would allow room to present that. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Learning HTML

This site is probably the best out there. Dismas|^(talk) 10:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what a great resource! I've been looking for something like this for a good long while. Very generous of you to follow up with this; thanks so much. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Enjoy! Dismas|^(talk) 10:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You know, just for my own reference, because I like one of its "quick-lookup" pages, I'm going to remind myself about this site, here too, and link to the help desk thread in which Dismas answered a question I'd posted that ended up being about an html tag, as well. Thanks again, Dismas; I sincerely appreciate your generosity, both here and at the help desk. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

About your comment at ANI...

can I order the CliffNotes version please? :P Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I know it's bad form to be so verbose. But that was the CliffNotes version. :P  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Insufferable

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For your comments at ANI, well said and good on you for keeping the larger picture in view. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Well said, and well done. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thoroughly well grounded comments, and they cheered me no end. Your humanity and sensitivity are inspiring. Best. Haploidavey (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Will you look at that! You stay away a few days, and just look at the kinds of things people say behind your back! ;-) Nuujinn, Tony Fox, Haploidavey, and ClovisPt, Jimmy, and TheDJ from ANI, too: I'm very grateful for your generous comments, grateful, and humbled by them, too. One of the things I like most about contributing to Wikipedia is that I'm often struck by a clear sense of being in the presence something like greatness here.

Thank you all for bringing your experience, your careful scholarship, your wit, your good will, your integrity and dedication, and your willingness to freely share all that with the world, here, to make that possible. And thanks, especially, to you, Nuujinn, for the barnstar! It's meaningless in itself, of course, just a pleasant graphic, but my knowledge of the extremely high and painstaking standards that you exhibit in all your contributions here makes it very meaningful to me, indeed. Best thanks, all.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism

I noticed that you recently voted against renaming the Communist terrorism article. Could you please provide a source that defines/explains what communist terrorism is. TFD (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, TFD. Thanks for asking; it's a compelling question from my perspective, and I'll be very pleased to discuss it with you: I've been impressed with your contributions that I've seen across multiple articles, and would be pleased to hear more of what you think on the topic, as well. I'm afraid I have to be offline for several hours, however, but I did want to just give this quick reply, for now, to acknowledge your query. More to follow as soon as possible. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I can't provide a source for a definition, or explain what the phrase might mean. "Communist terrorism" as an article title is far too broad, imo, but "Leftist terrorism" seems even worse to me. Both seem to me to be made-up phrases, and too broad/vague to be of any real use. We might just as well have articles named "Rightist torture" or "Leftist assassination". I'd support the deletion of any article so broadly named that came up at AfD. Just to mention a single and relatively minor objection among many, when I think of "communism" what comes to mind first for me are examples that predate Marx and Engels by centuries. The rules pertaining to the establishment of "compagnie" (various spellings) during the Middle Ages come to mind, as does the practice of the early Christian church as reported in the Acts of the Apostles, 2:44 and following verses, “All who believed were together, and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.” An even more homely example: Most married couples in the West practice communism in the sense of "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs," and usually in their common ownership of assets, as well.

But if an editor wants to make the case that any prominent figure in the 19th-century political and economic theory that appropriated the word "communism" was a supporter of terrorism then let him do so at the biographical article for that figure. Or if people want to write about the horrors perpetrated by individual national dictators who claimed to be inspired by Marx's and Engels' ideas then let them do so in articles specifically devoted to those particular dictators; such additions would be specific enough to improve the encyclopedia. I'm not really familiar enough with the lives and writings of Marx and Engels to render any definitive opinion about whether they might have supported terrorism, although I'm very inclined to doubt that based on the little I've read. But I do know that merely claiming inspiration from a particular authority doesn't make it so, and that self-professed followers of a cause don't always exemplify its founder's beliefs. If everyone who claimed to adhere to a particular creed did in fact accurately exemplify its founder's principles, we'd be logically compelled to rename our article on, say, The Inquisition, to something like "Christian terrorism", a title that would, of course, just be ridiculous.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not watch your page and missed your comments. Many thanks for replying. Writers on terrorism use typologies for different types of terrorism, including left-wing terrorism. Christian terrorism is seen as a subtype of religious terrorism. I do not know why they would use the term left-wing rather than communist but my guess is that most of these groups were not connected with Communist Parties and their ideologies might be difficult to categorize. Some of them are not very clear thinkers anyway. The term "Communist terrorism" however is not used in any consistent way. Mostly it was used by Western governments to describe insurgencies during the 1950s and 1960s, particularly for the Malayan Emergency. Otherwise the term is used sporadically.

The article was created by User:Mamalujo, who cut and pasted sections on various groups and wrote an unsourced lead.[1] Over the years no one has been able to produce a reliable source that provides a definition.

TFD (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for your reply. Half the problem I have is with the word "terrorism". It's no longer a useful word, imo: it has come to be used so broadly that that in most people's minds now I think a "terrorist" means "anyone who fights against my side and who doesn't wear a uniform." Roughly the same usage reliable sources give to the word, "insurgent", I think.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Christine O'Donnell

I appreciate your feedback concerning the Christine O'Donnell article, but I'm a bit confused about your definition of overlinking. As far as I am aware, notable people such as George H.W. Bush and concepts important to the article (such as O'Donnell's Irish heritage and evangelical faith) need to be linked. Therefore, I linked them. Am I missing something? Treybien (talk) 12:27 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've replied on this page. Would you mind posting your reply there, also? Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Pamela Geller

Hi Ohio. Thanks for helping to resolve the issues at the Pamela Geller article. I think we only need to work out one more thing, which is if and how to mention the Second Temple. I raised a couple questions in the discussion; would you mind responding over there? Also, I know you have some concerns about the links; I haven't addressed them yet because I expect the questionable link won't be needed in the version that we are moving toward. If that link is an issue, I'll certainly address your concerns. Thanks. guanxi (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ohio - I want to take your concerns into account and I appreciate your heroic attempt to compromise with Epeefleche, but I'm not seeing where you are headed. If you succeed in compromise with E., it will be only you and Epeefleche who agree, with almost all others wanting to remove the quote and go with option C (I prefer A, but I get to compromise too). Then what? It seems like we'd still be at the same consensus for C, though it would be a little weaker.

Perhaps being later to the discussion, you're not aware of the history: Epeefleche reverted several times and tendentiously edited the quote into the article in the middle of the discussion; only Epeefleche claims that WP:SYN applies, and many others, including an Admin's outside opinion, think E. is being uncooperative and disingenuous. I tried several times to compromise with E. already, and he/she ignored my attempts. guanxi (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but I prefer to keep the discussion on the article talk page. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Heim theory and Terra Novus at ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I was actually in the process of looking at the diffs and talk page and refs for Heim Theory when the "new message" bar showed up for this notification. Not quite sure yet, more info to review, but will probably comment at ANI. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. Dougweller has opened a new thread on WP:ANI about this [2] following the return of Terra Novus after his one week block. Mathsci (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Medical cannabis

Hi OhioStandard! I was too slow. ;-) Just wanted to revert according to WP:ELNO #13, but #5 fits as well. Alfie↑↓© 13:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alfie! It's good to hear from you, thanks! I've been avoiding the work of revising the MedCan article, as you know. I keep thinking about it, especially about categorizing claimed benefits according to how well-supported they are (or aren't!) by the science. My life has been very hectic the past many months, but things should settle down in December and subsequently; time for some real work, soon, I think, including revisiting the information you so generously provided in the thread that began as a discussion about the affect of cannabis on hippocampal acetylcholine. Of course, if I delay attending to the article much longer there might not be anything left; I see SandyGeorgia has been busily deleting cites after her earlier wholesale "medrs" tagging. I think a better approach would be to use those refs to place a particular claim in the appropriate category, myself. ( End of rant ;-)

I hope you're well; I miss our exchanges, if you'll excuse me for speaking so personally. I'm afraid I was a disappointing interlocuter since I didn't allocate time to learn enough about our topic, didn't undertake any degree of study commensurate with the richness and complexity of our discussion. As some very small compensation, for now, this thread may amuse or interest you. I presented quite a jumble of pseudoscientific conjecture in my final post, sheer speculation, and not very carefully done at all, but such things interest me greatly. I think we're all much more influenced by the hunter-gatherer phase of our species' development than is generally recognized. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi OhioStandard! I'm still watching the MedCan article, but must confess that I just try to revert plain vandalism. Since a while I'm using WP:Huggle to work on RC. You wouldn't believe the amount of nonsense showing up (roughly one IP edit every two seconds). I miss our exchanges as well – have been the best I had in WP by far! THX for your personal report; was quite amusing. From my personal experience I would support your speculations. Your friend should start with Beethoven's symphonies and continue with Gustav Mahler's – a lot of parallel levels to discover. ;-) Alfie↑↓© 17:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Greetings

Hey, OhioStandard, I did not see a button to push to leave a new message, so I hope this is okay. I wanted to thank you for not assuming I was girl, because of my user page. I think, maybe if you had a more sterotypical mind, you might assume I was a dude, so thanks for being openminded. That shows tolerance, and I think that is tres cool. Which means very cool in French. :) (Alos, I apologize if I messed up this "mail" section.AdbMonkey (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Mais bien sur! Tres domestique! Which means, more or less, "What a pleasant message!" Thanks, and no worries re the formatting; I should probably add a "send me a message" button. Somwhere on the page when you're viewing a talk page you should find a "new section" button or tab that's "clickable", that'd be the one you want. ( I can't tell you exactly where to look, because I'm using a non-standard user interface, and I've forgotten now, what the default one looks like. ) Alternatively, you can always click "edit" on the final message on the page, as I presume you did, here, and then begin your section with == New message == or whatever section title you want for your addition. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

for your opinion

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		For your impeccable analysis at ANI of another editors actions and probable motives. I think it puts the actions in perspective nicely The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, RA; I appreciate this, very much. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Seasonal Greeting

--Nuujinn (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.

How very kind, Nuujinn! Thanks for thinking of me! I'm afraid real-life responsibilities have kept me away for some time, but I look forward to things calming down that way in the next couple of months, and hope to have the pleasure of working with you again in the coming year. My very best wishes to you for 2011. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Fut.Perf.

Thanks for your very considerate response OhioStandard. Wikipedia needs more such admins like you. Good Luck and God Bless. Boolyme ^Talk!! 08:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome; I appreciate your words very much. I should clarify, though, that I'm not an administrator. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The reference removed

Hi, I removed the reference you complained about. May I please ask you to remove that part of your comment from DR? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Good on you; thank you. I didn't feel I could just delete or strikeout my objection, though, since it's so entwined in the thread at AfD, but you'll have seen by now that I went back and prefaced my objection there with an after-the-fact annotation to explain that you've since removed that reference from your Blame Israel first article that's now under review.

Thanks, too, for striking your suggestion that I might have objected to one of the refs you included in your previous Wagner article out of a racist motive. Things do tend to spiral out of control in the competitive debate that characterizes the interactions over I/P articles here; it's just too easy by half to let oneself get drawn into that spirit of competition and to let it overrule higher and more cooperative motives. I certainly find that in myself, of course, and see it throughout the whole sorry arena, as well.

You know, I really did want the thesis of your Richard Wagner's first love article to be true, and was quite disappointed to learn that it wasn't. It was a delightfully appealing article, even if most of it was written by other people ( And I've since learned there's no requirement here to attribute text after its copyright has expired. ) It would have tidily explained the composer's racism, for one thing, and it's a great story besides. And I really did spend "hours", btw, probably at least six hours over a couple of days, actually, reviewing the sources that speak to it. I didn't say so at the time, but IIRC, my preliminary guess based on that research was that the whole story probably originated in the unnamed edition of Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums, presumably from some anecdote someone once heard. On reflection about this, it occurs to me that I just might have spent longer in that research than it took you to create the article in the first place, given its cut-and-paste origins.

And now that I say so, I guess that concisely illustrates why I spoke so critically at the current AfD for your Blame Israel first article. I tend to swell up in righteous indignation over what I consider poor sources when I have the least reason to suspect that their inclusion may have been influenced by a contributor's enthusiasm for his thesis, by his POV, in other words. This probably carries over from my love for the foundations of mathematics (logic, set theory, theory of numbers, etc.) where exactitude and rigor are absolutely crucial if one is to have any chance at all of making a contribution that doesn't just muddy the waters. I admit that the response isn't especially helpful here, though, and I'll try to check it in the future.

In that same spirit of reconciliation, I'll also say that if the other refs you used in your Wagner article had been cricket, I probably wouldn't have taken such exception to the cite you gave to the story in The American Hebrew, even though it was so far from being what we normally think of as a reliable source in itself. It wouldn't have raised such a storm as a supplemental ref, in other words, if the primary thesis of the article itself hadn't been ... well, to be polite, I'll say "apocryphal, at best." I'll also reiterate that I know you weren't aware of that; I understand and accept your statement that you didn't know that Praeger had fabricated so much of his book, and that you didn't recall the discussion we all had about it previously.

So, better, at all? If this isn't good enough to let us kiss and make up, then would you object to maybe just rubbing noses? Now if you'd only give Unomi back his cookies and stop calling him a troll we could all be pals again, and go get coffee and knishes together. I think I might even offer to treat, and that's saying a lot, because I'm really quite a cheapskate. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop making unwarranted comments with a pointed edit summaries as you did here D: D8 D; D= DX.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm genuinely sorry that you felt offended. In all sober earnest, I don't like being so critical and I don't like naming any comment as racist. But you're telling me that an ad hominem written about a Jewish commentator using exactly the format you used about the Palestinian one I linked to wouldn't have seemed so to you? Oh, about your suggestion that I may have violated a copyright, did you perhaps miss the link I provided to the article from which I copied the quote? It's the superscript "1", that immediately follows it.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am more than offended by your unwarranted accusation. Here's the comment I wrote a year or so ago. Do I sound like the one, who would make a racist comment? I do have reservations about the author of the quote you provided, but it has absolutely nothing to do with racism whatsoever! If that or a similar quote were taken from an Israeli Jew my reaction would have been the same. I would appreciate, if you retract your unwarranted accusation. --Mbz1 (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've considered this very carefully, and I'm sorry to have to tell you that I can't retract my characterization of your comment. I hope you'll be able to hear me, as to why I can't. What I can do, though, is repeat that I'm genuinely sorry I've offended you, and also say that I wish I could have thought of a less disturbing word than "racist" to appropriately describe your reply to the quotation I posted. I'll go further still, and tell you that I honor you for your comment to a user with a hateful image on his user page, the comment you cite just above about being willing to give your own life to save any child's, without regard to ethnic origin: I believe you about that, and I'm really trying to understand, here. Do you get that? Do you understand that I'd be very glad to be able to understand this from your perspective, and to know how it feels to you?

But here's the problem I have: I don't see you as operating out of anything like that same olive-branch orientation in your actual contributions to Wikipedia; very much to the contrary, I regret to say. More specifically, if I understand your assertions at the AfD for Blame Israel first, then in reply to a user citing a reliable-source editorial quotation, you would be just fine with a response that went like this:

The above quote is by an Orthodox Jew from Israel (the government of which rains incendiary phosphorus on Gaza), J. Doe Leibowitz. He now lives in America, a country with a constantly increasing number of anti-Muslim incidents. --Example (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the same format you employed, in your own comment. Can you tell me in all good conscience that you'd not view this strictly-analogous hypothetical as a near-perfect example of racially-motivated prejudice? You were ready to call me anti-Semitic for objecting to the cite you made to the pleasant-but-non-RS 1896 magazine we discussed earlier; would you really hesitate to do so if someone posted the above comment? Wouldn't you and your friends condemn this response to a quotation by a Jew as being a virulently anti-Semitic attack on the author's credibility?

I can't imagine you could see the above, offered in the same context as your own comment, as anything but anti-Semitic, and I'd support you entirely in that view. This is why I can't retract the admittedly ugly word I felt I had no alternative but to use in characterizing your post. If there's something I'm missing in this, I'd be glad to be told of it... Btw, I really hope you'll engage in a serious dialogue with me about this. I know it's difficult, and that the conditions between us at present are far from conducive, but I really do want to understand your perspective, both on this particular point, and more generally, too, if I possibly can.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess my English is hard to understand. Let's try yet another time. Here's a quote from wikipedia article: Racism is the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race, ethnicity, or nationality are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that ethnic differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

I am telling you that I cannot care less what race, ethnicity, or nationality that man is. I would have made the same comment, if he were a Jew. Period. It was my last comment here. I really do not care to talk to the user, who called my comment "racist". --Mbz1 (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I can understand your reluctance; that would probably make me mad, too. Suppose I suspend my disbelief for a while and we set aside the ugly word for the sake of this immediate discussion, in courtesy to someone who, among other admirable traits such as tenacity and loyalty, takes such magnificent pictures, as I believe I observed before. ( C'mon, give me a break: That last would only be a gratuitous compliment if I had said just, "great pictures". And they are, without reserve or equivocation, magnificent. ) Let's see if we can both back up enough to sort this.

Under that regimen, then, it occurs to me that even if a person does think he has cause to view another's remark in very negative terms, it's poor policy to use a "hot-button" word to describe it so, as I did. The word I used can certainly be classed as a hot-button, I think, just like the term "anti-Semitic" with which you so nearly favored me. Both are so brutally potent as to almost constitute de facto discrediting, "poisoning the well" all by themselves, regardless of whether they have any shred of truth to them or not. So, what I'm saying is that I did respond to your post mentioning rockets and the rise of anti-Semitic hate crimes in Sweden with righteous indignation, which really isn't a very appropriate motivation when one sinner addresses another.

Besides, I do understand that your response was complicated by the fact of your having missed the cite/ref link I provided. I can see how it might have appeared, without awareness of that link, and in the competitive atmosphere that's been prevailing, that I was trying to slip some variety of Palestinian propaganda past your radar. I wasn't, of course, as I know you understood once you became aware of the link, but I can see how it could have at first seemed as if I were. ( I presume you Googled the quote to find the source, before you saw the link? )

But it does occur to me that if I hadn't jumped on your comment with such alacrity, and with both of my great huge feet, and had instead said something much milder, that you might not have felt quite so compelled to defend your comment. If I'd instead said something like, "Say, are you sure that's exactly what you meant to say?" then it occurs to me that there might have been some remote possibility that you would have felt the freedom to respond, "Well, perhaps that wasn't the most sensitive thing I've ever said." ( Stay with me here, I'm having fun making up both sides of our missed-opportunity conversation. ;-) But, of course, I got self-righteous, you got defensive, and then everyone else got mad, too, and that was pretty much the end of reasonable discussion. So what do you think: Could the conversation have worked out the way I'd have liked it to, something like the way I've described, in some alternate or do-over universe? Or do you still feel it necessary to stick to your guns on this absolutely? Let me know tomorrow, if you like. You've had a lot of responding to do already today, at the AfD, and I imagine that could wear on a person. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Ignore that last part, the part about getting back to me tomorrow. It's not necessary to be so quick, unless you just want to. For one thing, I'll likely be off-line for a day or three anyway. But more to the immediate point − and I don't know why it's just now occurring to me − it's probably not reasonable or fair to expect someone who has fielded all the criticism you have over your article to have much motivation to understand anyone else's views. We all identify with our own work to at least some extent, of course, and tend to take criticism of our work as criticism of our selves, no matter how much we try to avoid that trap. So I imagine it must feel really annoying to have one's article AfD'd, and then to hear it criticized so freely, too. Get back to me when you feel like you want to. I'd appreciate that.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I am constantly impressed by the scholarly nature of your arguments. Here's to you! NickCT (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! This means a lot to me, given the respect I have for your own contributions. I've watched your very patient efforts to reach consensus on the talk pages for multiple controversial articles for some months now, always based on the soundest analysis and respectful consideration for all contributors' opinions. I've especially admired the many instances where you've provided alternative wordings for hotly-disputed passages, always composed in scrupulous fairness and in excellent, admirably concise prose, without favoring your own position, and then provided a structure for editors to !vote among those alternatives. You've consistently resolved complex disputes that way, and allowed the article and contributing editors to move forward productively. I'm very grateful for that, as I am for your commendation. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not...

...it's a possible explanation for the alleged discrepancy which will very naturally occur to many. AnonMoos (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I do like it, actually, in the sense that I'm glad you called my attention to the problem. I meant to leave you a note to say "thanks" and explain my BLP revert, but the phone rang and I got distracted. Sorry if it seemed like there was any malice in that; there wasn't. Also, you'll see I posted a "do not mis-infer skullduggery here" kind of note at the article talk page, Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Those Navy IPs

I never did hear back from the Foundation, so I just re-blocked them for a year. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Bless you, sir, and all your house, unto the seventh generation! You are a most noble and shining example of all that's right and good and true here. :-) He had been prolificly vandalizing here for years, and his two IPs are static, anyway, so no collateral damage. Good on you, and my best thanks for following up so responsibly!  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good block, although I always thought it was two guys sharing an office. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Cliff! I'd thought of posting to your talk to share my glee over this, as I know you've also been frustrated at the long string of short blocks these IPs have seen stretching back into the primordial mists. Maybe you're right about it being two guys who are tag-teaming; I'm used to having multiple computers in my office (or at least to run a session from) because of my work in software development, but that's unusual, I admit. Good to hear from you, and best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk)

Those nasty liberals

Thanks for the heads up. I'm actually in Australia, but have a fascination for that wondrous thing, the English language, and how many differnt ways it's used around the world.

In Australia, just like America, we have two major poltical parties that dominate state and federal politics. The more right wing and definitely more conservative of those two parties is the Liberal Party. It's the party which has historically forged our strongest links with the USA. (Should we tell those who hate liberals?) We also quite comfortably use the word liberal (without the capital L) to describe someone who is fair and generous. It hardly ever has a negative connotation. (Unless one is choosing to attack the political party, but that's like politics everywhere.)

I visited America a couple of years ago and was told by lots of people "I just love your (Australian) accent". Trouble was, the accent got in the way of communicating. I struggled even ordering a Coke! Did enjoy my stay though.

Now, about Wikipedia... I start a new job tomorrow. I have a feeling I'll be a low key player here for a while. Good luck keeping the peace. HiLo48 (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this, a very helpful aid to understanding, and I appreciate it. Glad to hear you didn't find our side of the globe unpleasant during your visit. And we only pretend not to understand Brits and Aussie's speech because all of us over here are either secretly or avowedly envious of the way you speak. Besides, every American male over the age of six is in love with Nat! ( aka Communitychannel on Youtube ). I wonder if she'll ever make me Lamingtons? Best of luck with the new job!  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help desk#Problem of external links in body of articles

( Note: the comments below follow up a thread from the help desk that has been archived here. -- Ohiostandard )

Re, 'any takers' - some thoughts;

• It's be more complex that you'd imagine - to code, I mean. But don't let that put you off. I hope you will pursue this
• I think a tool that assists the process could work. Along the lines of, perhaps, User:Splarka/dabfinder.js -which just highlights all disambiguations and/or redirects on a page - or, like reflinks. Or something
• I guess from your comments, you do not code bots yourself; however, you could do some of the 'groundwork', if you wanted. You could a) have a really good look around for similar tools, similar ideas in the past, and b) think very carefully about exactly what any tool/assistant could do, y editing some pages and thinking, "how can a bot find these EL's, and how should it best show them / fix them".
• Finding el's - I find it easier to turn off WikEd for that type of editing. I just 'find' (CTRL-F, on firefox) "http:" usually.
• Please remember: external links in the body are not prohibited - in some cases, they can be allowed. It's up for discussion/consensus, like everything.
• If we just removed them, we could lose information - quite often, people use an EL when they intended a ref. And the URL they use might be to the root of the website, not the one that actually gives the info. In other words, quite often, this problem will require manual human care
• Maybe try Wikipedia:Bot requests - the folks there know more about this stuff.

I hope you will pursue this a little, because the idea of 'something' to help with fixing el's has certainly come up quite a few times, in the past.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  07:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this, for this suggestion and for sharing your thoughts/caveats, too. I'm wholly sensible of the points you make, and certainly agree that a conservative approach is called for. Like you, I feel very averse to the prospect of losing any helpful information in the process of addressing this vexing problem. And you're certainly correct, of course, that the right way to begin would be to look around very carefully to see what might have been done in this direction previously. Thanks for the tip about wikEd, too; you're right, and I wasn't aware of the ctrl-f toggle, so that was helpful as well. That's an amusing comic, too; thanks.

You're correct in your speculation that I've never coded a bot. I'm not sure I'd have time to learn, although I might, too. I do have enough background in high-level programming languages, and was, in my distant past, tolerably adept at writing simple (Unix) shell scripts. But so far I've avoided learning any full-blown scripting language well. The prospect of learning, say, Python, appeals to me, although I don't know how much time I could devote to such a project. I do feel pretty comfortable writing SQL stored procedures; doesn't MediaWiki use MySQL or some such? I see from my first look at our creating a bot page that one can code a bot via Ruby, as well, which sounds appealing, as I've thought pretty seriously in the past about making the time to learn that language. Do you have any suggestions as to the best programming environment to use to create a bot for WikiMedia? If I did undertake any such project, I'd want it to be open source, btw.

I agree entirely that such a tool, especially in its early versions, could only provide an assist; that each EL a tool identified would need human "eyes on" before it could be properly dealt with. It might (or might not) be that eventually a developer could gain enough sophistication that perhaps some kinds of ELs could be dealt with in a more automated way, but I agree, of course, that one would have to be painstakingly cautious to avoid the potential for serious disruption or loss of useful information. Finally, I do take your point, as well, that WP:EL doesn't prohibit all inline external links. The various "Bibleref" templates that I just noticed today are one ubiquitous exception, I see, and I understand that other, one-off, article-specific exceptions may have been approved by consensus, as well. Any further thoughts that occur to you about any of this would be welcome, as long as you understand that at this point I can't make any promises at all that I could undertake such a project. Thanks again,  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, MediaWiki uses SQL for everything. Also, there is a near-live partial replica on Toolserver (mostly: everything *except* actual article content - ie pages, revisions, users, etc) which some people (including myself) can run queries on. See Wikipedia:SQL.

Lots of the bots run on toolserver, too.

Re. languages - my personal experience is limited; I've written a bot that writes to Wikipedia pages using c# and something called the "DotNetWiki" framework - which makes it all rather easy. But that isn't the norm; I think most use Perl or something, but I really know little about it. You're far better saying hello to The Earwig (talk · contribs) - I'm sure he'd advise - or, ask on Wikipedia talk:BAG.

However, I'm not trying to 'pass the buck' - if there is anything else you want to ask me, any time, please do.  Chzz  ►  20:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There's not the least whiff of passing the buck in this; on the contrary, I'm grateful for your suggestions. I'd really (!) like to have the time to undertake this, I just doubt whether it's feasible for me at present. I'll have to consider on it, and will take you up on your kind offer if I have any other questions that you might be able to address. Many thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool. And update, I spoke to Earwig today, and he's not editing much, for the immediate/indef future - so that avenue is out, really. BAG in general might help. But yes, "do it yourself" is best, of course :-) Best of luck with that but do ask for help, any time,  Chzz  ►  04:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Kaveh Farrokh

Hi, Please read my last comment in this Rfc. Is wikipedia a dealing company ?!!! Now that I have discovered it, the author should have his own article. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 11:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I did read your final comment, but it leaves me none the wiser. I've had no prior involvement with this issue that I can recall. Did you perhaps post to this page by mistake?  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No mistake, I was asking you to comment. No need to do so. I just quit the discussion. Thanks anyway. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 15:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Overlake Christian Church

		The Royalty and Nobility Barnstar
		The article hasn't been changed since your last edit. Thanks -- 06:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC) 69.22.179.83 (talk)

Thank you so much!! You are our hero. Finally, the facts are as they are. That's what was the argument about. Thank you for stepping in and help Wikipedia as neutral as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.179.87 (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome; thanks for your generous comments. If the article's content is to stay at all stable, though, we really will need as broad a participation on it's talk page as we can get, to reach a broadly-based consensus, in other words, with parties on both sides of this long and nasty fight agreeing to "defend" a consensus-based wording. I'll make some suggestions on the talk page in maybe a week about using some features of the software to help keep folks from doing "drive-by" wholesale deletions or "undue weight", sensationalist/tabloid-style additions, either. But mostly the only way that a truthful-yet-not-sensationalized, well-sourced version has a chance of "sticking" for the long-term is if folks on both sides can agree on how much to say, how to say it, and (especially!) if they'll all agree to keep the page "watchlisted" and restore the agreed-upon version when other editors happen to move its content away from what was agreed to.

So I'm nagging, again ;-) to ask you to chime in on the article's talk page over the next week or two. When things settle down re this article in a few days ( i.e. when a version emerges that all or most of the recent participants can at least hold their respective noses and live with ) I'll break out a new section there on the talk page for discussion about how we can keep the agreed upon version stable over time. But it really will work ever so much more effectively if you'll join in there, too. No penalty for any previous frustration expressed, which was certainly understandable, and if you have any edits you want in the article that seem to work for the whole group, I'll be happy to make them. You can propose changes there, in other words, and I or another editor will certainly make them if the group goes along, even though you can't do so yourself, as an IP-only editor, with the article being "semi-protected" for the next month. Hope to see you on the talk page over then next week or two.

Oh; one other important point. It'd be best to take a (excuse the phrase, but it's concise) "don't ask, don't tell" stance re whether you might have ever attended the church. If you're at all concerned about the possibility that someone on the talk page (or elsewhere) might ask you that, or any other too-personal questions about your beliefs or anything else, I'd suggest that you either not respond at all to that, or simply say something like, "My religious affiliations and background are no one's business but my own so long as I respect Wikipedia's relevant policies. Please don't ask me for personal information again." I believe you'll find other editors will strongly support any such statement, as I would myself, of course. If that were to occur on a page I don't have watchlisted, and anyone persists despite your reiteration of such a statement, then post notice of that here, or if I'm not around, a calmly-worded question to the friendly folks at the help desk about how to deal with it would be in order, and would probably also get an administrator, or at least a responsible, long-term editor to tell any nosy parkers to just back off.

Lastly, if anyone asks about previous IP addresses you may have edited under, or objects to any previous comments made, it'd be best to just admit any, and say, "Yeah, I spoke too precipitously. Sorry." I absolutely guarantee that this approach won't land you in any kind of hot water at all, provided you don't purposely "hop" IP addresses to edit, or pretend to be different people by taking advantage of dynamically changing IP addresses. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, really "lastly", now: Do please try to remember to end every post you make with four "tilde" characters, i.e. with this

~~~~

after the period following the last word in your final sentence. Doing so appends your (IP) "signature" to the post, so other editors can know who wrote it. If you don't do that, a software "robot" process will eventually do it for you, but some editors will get annoyed, and if any of them have suspicious minds, could interpret failing to do so as an attempt to unfairly influence a discussion by obsfucating who contributed what. Thanks again, and feel free to ask me any questions you have (although I'd prefer to keep any discussion about actual content of the article on its talk page) about how to participate, or again, at the help desk, where you'll nearly always get a pleasant and well-informed reply or three within half an hour, and usually within just ten minutes or so. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar Award

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for encouraging me to stick to my promises in my work on Wikipedia.   Novus  Orator  05:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I recall writing somewhere that despite our wide differences of opinion, I had no doubt that you'd be excellent company in real life. Your response here just confirms me in that view. I think it must be the most gracious reply I've ever received from someone I've had conflict with, and I honor you for it; thank you. If you ever want to redecorate your talk page, feel free to change the "wallpaper" of my recent contribution whenever the mood strikes, or right away, for that matter, if you like. I'd thought about trying to include one of the four or five thumbnail videos from from this page, but I wasn't sure that they'd all work for you since ( I think? ) some of them may require the presence of a browser plug-in to play .ogg files, for example. Anyway, I meant what I said in my post to your page. Your contribution to Reaction Engines Skylon has been outstanding, and I hope you feel really, really proud about that. You should. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Logic and liberalism

Sorry not to be clear as to who I was addressing. I don't remember. And in any case, the discussion is closed. There is nothing so old as a closed Wikipedia talk page.

As for logic, I recommend Logicomx, logic in comic book form. You can read more about it here: http://www.amazon.com/Logicomix-Search-Truth-Apostolos-Doxiadis/dp/1596914521/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1298120295&sr=1-1 Rick Norwood (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Brevity is the soul of wit. A word to the wise is sufficient. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Rick, if you only knew how very hard I strive to be brief, and how painful my general failure in that struggle is to me, I have no doubt that you'd take pity rather than umbrage at my poor non-witty, frequently unwise self! I didn't mean to offend you in posting a second request to your talk re wp:indentation, but in retrospect I do see that was unnecessary and a bit harping, Sorry for that. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope you didn't take offense, none was intended. And, no, my watch list is so long already I don't watchlist every page I post to. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No, not the least offence taken. Besides, I wasn't joking about my struggle against prolixity. And in all seriousness, my second post on wp:indent to your talk was unnecessary, and you were right to tell me so... That said, you won't mind that I've indented your post from flush-left, just above, I hope? ;-) Cheers, and best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

O M G

Thanks for this. I'm sure it violated at least three guidelines (and possibly was illogical), but it was worth it. Sometimes this place is way too stuffy. Rivertorch (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right about the policy violations. I half-expected to have been hauled off to ANI by now by some grumpy editor shouting, "Help! Help! BLP! BLP!". But more substantively, it's not just her ears. The New York Post snapped pics of her going into a druggist's shop to buy a bottle of this, and photographed her coming out of her building with this in her arms. I'd say a certain editor has a lot of explaining to do... Glad you appreciated my post; thanks for saying so! Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

OMG I AM HAULING YOU TO AN/I RIGHT NOW PREPARE TO BE BANNED, SUCKA

p.s. lol jk :P l'aquatique[talk] 18:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to it extremely, l'aquatique! Thanks for your comment; it makes me glad to know that my admittedly warped sense of humor finds at least some kindred folk throughout the world. Lord knows it finds little-enough appreciation at home! "A prophet in his own country", and all that, I suppose. ;-) I wonder, though: Are we obliged to inform Sarek of this thread? Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Lacking emotion, I am sure he would not appreciate its nuances! Anyway, my intention was mostly to remind you that even though there are a lot of people who take themselves way too seriously, I'd have something to say to someone who really thought it'd be appropriate to make a fuss about a little joke. I can block you if you really want me to, though. l'aquatique[talk] 18:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, re Sarek, and I appreciate the reminder and the support, too, very much. I never really grooved to the whole S&M thing, though, so I think I'll have to pass on the block. But it was really nice of you to offer! Thanks!  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Help Award
		In tremendous appreciation for your helpfulness on my talk page, in working on User:Tomaca's question. I am very grateful for your kindness to her and to me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

So, I'm on my way back from a somewhat stressful (and expensive! :P) vet visit thinking about her and what I might say or do to help out (I have asked for eyes of a few people at Google chat, but nobody has had time and I haven't wanted to ask at COI, which sometimes seems to predispose people to negativity), and I get in to find you courteously and informatively addressing her. Truly, that's fabulous. Thanks so much for helping out. :) I'll reply at my talk page, too, but your assistance was so heartening to me that I just had to come over here and say so, in pictoral fashion. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

(P.S. I'd avoid looking at this lady too closely, because she's a bit scary. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC))

Wow, thanks for this! There's not an editor on Wikipedia whose approbation I could value more than I do yours; I'm very grateful. And you're welcome, of course, for the offer to try to help the user. I'm actually very greatly impressed that you were willing to do so yourself when you already have so very much on your plate related to copyright matters.

May I also just say that I hope your pet will be alright? I don't have one myself right now ( although my girlfriend's cat clearly regards my lap as her own private furniture ) but I've been nearly as attached to some pets as I have to people, and I know how it feels when one is unwell.

You really shouldn't have told me that the nurse was scary, though. Of course that just prompted me to view the image at full 3,582 × 4,797 resolution. She's either an evil zombie vampire nurse, or she just had her brains sucked out by a ghoul. If it's not one or the other, then I suppose the only other explanation is that she spent too much time trying to improve articles on climate change or politics. Thanks again for this thoughtful notice, very much. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Richard A. Falk

Thanks for catching my slip-up at Richard A. Falk and sorry for briefly messing up the lead. I guess the lesson is not to edit articles while watching basketball games on TV.—Biosketch (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries at all, but good of you to say so; thanks. I'd bet that a very high percentage of us multitask for one-off edits of that sort. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A couple of good "tall guy" motorcycles.

The 70's era Norton Commando can be dialed in to fit someone 6'8" and the Ducati sport-classics can be fitted out with "rear sets" and taller shocks to accommodate a taller rider. (I asked around this week) I still think the BMW is the best bet. Cheers- V7-sport (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I take your suggestions very kindly, V7 thank you! I'll certainly investigate these possibilities. I have yet to sit on the BMW, but I'm pretty favorably disposed in its direction, too. Thanks very much for passing along this additional information; I appreciate your generosity in doing so very much indeed. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran

Hi, I wish I could work with you on removing the misleading conclusions, but an editor keeps complaining to admins that I edit the article out of spite or something. Anyways I hope you keep with it and take your points to WP:NPOVN where you will hopefully get a non-biased opinion and I also suggest a tag is added as the dubious claims being made in the lead are very serious. Passionless -Talk 23:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

As you know from the analysis of the sources cited that I presented on the article's talk page, I share your concerns. I haven't given up on it, though; I've been spending considerable time examining the sources further, actually. I'll probably edit it again, based on that. I appreciate your suggestion re the NPOVN, but I frankly don't see that board as a very useful resource. Maybe its traffic is too low, but posts seem to languish there for long periods with no uninvolved editors expressing an opinion. Nor do I see much good in tagging the article at this point. It certainly presents a very "selective" view of the facts, to put it gently, but just tagging it without putting in the considerable effort that would be needed to address the article's problems comprehensively would just stir up trouble, in my opinion, without any productive outcome likely to result.  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Truscott

Carl Truscott: I think if the disruption continues on Truscott you might have to request semi protection, its probably the same person , someone with a grudge, this is a clear WP:COI - this IP from User_talk:12.33.141.36 is from http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us and the other single issue account is prolly them at home Contributions/173.52.113.72 - Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Rob! Thanks for reverting that; I was in the process of composing a novel to the New Jersey IP on his talk page when you reverted, and had also intended to revert when I saw that you'd beat me to it. I've thought of semi-protection, too, of course, but haven't requested it for a couple of reasons. Probably the most important one is that I have reason to believe that someone closely associated with the subject has been editing as an IP and via various sequential socks for a long while.

As you know, we normally discourage people from that kind of COI editing, but I'd like to avoid shutting the article to IPs for his sake, in this case, since I think we'll need his active participation if we're ever to reach a stable version. I'll probably suggest to the IP I'm thinking of that he create a new account under which to disclose what I assume might be his COI at some point, since he's expressed an interest in having the article deleted, if possible, and it's my understanding that doing so would reinforce his case. But I need to take the time to carefully present his possible options to him for proceeding with that.

I don't think the article should be deleted, btw. But I do strongly support his right to seek that, and I think it's only fair that I should help him learn as much as he can re his possible options that way, since he does seem to be pretty inexperienced in navigating our somewhat intimidating labyrinth of rules here. If he asks, and wants to proceed that way, I'd probably even be willing to help him write the AfD proposal text, unless he wants to try contacting the Foundation, first.

Also, with so many IPs having been involved re this article for so long, I'd like to allow their involvement as "full" participants in the talk page discussion we need to restart over this; I'd prefer that no one feel like a second-class participant in that discussion, if possible. And while I know it's a nuisance to have to keep reverting "scrubbing" and "damning" edits, there seem to be enough "eyes on" now to make that happen pretty quickly. If you haven't, already, you might like to look at my mea culpa on the New Jersey IP's talk page. I hope you're well, and see you soon on the Truscott talk page. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick addition: It's of course possible that our New Jersey friend has some COI, and that occurred to me too, but I don't see that there's a necessary correlation between a former DOJ (Federal Government) official and someone who apparently works for the NJ judiciary. Or have I possibly forgotten some connection Truscott had to the State of New Jersey's court system?  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems like an open and shut case to me, He began his law enforcement career in 1980 as an Investigator for the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety - report against him is from http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s0610/final.pdf and the ip is from - http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/ Its clearly not a simple passer-by, but I have no problem at all with them joining in and discussing the issue, the more the merrier. I have found that often in a case like this where a BLP is attacked repeatedly that it is often a single person with a opinionated grudge against the subject for one reason or another. Off2riorob (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I'd forgotten that. Wow, though; from 20 - 30 years ago!? If you're right about the connection and motive then that might be one for the record books.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

DraceyFreeman

Dracey_Freeman - thoughts? - Off2riorob (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I really wish I'd seen that myself, for several reasons. I know, of course, and that your query here is perfectly in order (and I am indeed grateful to be asked my opinion) but I have to respond that I probably shouldn't contribute to the thread. I came across what looks like a pretty egregious example of canvassing today that I'll probably have to report in the next day or two. I'd prefer not to complicate that by allowing anyone even the most ridiculous of grounds to suggest that I'd done anything even remotely similar myself. I hope you'll understand this has nothing to do with you, and that you won't take offence at all; there's not the least personal imputation intended, of course. I don't at all mind saying, though, that I think you'd do well to post an immediate request for help on this one at AN or AN/I. Cordially, and with best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Its not really an issue for AN/I, asking for an opinion is not what WP:Canvassing is about, but its been prodded and I have doubts it will last a full seven days, no worries, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't suggest AN or AN/I with the idea of penalizing anyone. I did so because that would be a way to quickly get the attention of someone who can delete the article immediately, instead of having to wait for a PROD to run its course. Given that the article could influence opinion re an ongoing trial, I'd even say it wouldn't be much of a stretch to e-mail oversight to get the immediate results that seem called for in this case.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Its been raised to a speedy WP:A7 now which is what I was thinking, lets see it an admin accepts that and get rid of it. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome!

Thanks for the nice note. It is no problem to discuss such cases. I find RSN an good discussion forum in order to get my own brain around cases like this, which inevitably come up for all editors.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding my thanks for your kind note on my Talk page. TimidGuy (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure: I appreciate the work you've both done at RSN, very much. It takes patience with POV-driven editors, and a willingness to really sift through a considerable volume of material to contribute well there, and you both do that admirably. I'm grateful for that; thanks again! Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a place

to report an user you have problems with. An article's talk page is a wrong venue. Please stop discussing me there.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I've talked with an admin about this, I'm soon going to take care of this situation at AE under WP:ARBPIA, alright Ohiostandard? Passionless -Talk 21:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Passionless. I have very limited experience in dealing with an editor who's this agressive. I see she's deleted the relevant talk page section a second time now, with the edit summary "wrong venue". She's almost insisting this has to be escalated: I can't understand why anyone would want to drag others into a round of drama over these insults, rather than simply saying, "Yeah, I got mad. Sorry," which I wouldn't consider a big deal.

But just deleting the talk-page section repeatedly implies to me that she plans to continue this kind of behavior. Anyway, I'm not going to restore the section a second time because I think this is getting pretty ridiculous and I don't want to fan the flames if I can help it. I'd much prefer to keep the drama to a minimum, but we really can't have editors - especially in so contentious an area - who feel free to characterize others as ... well, I'll reproduce the section she deleted (twice) below; it pretty much speaks for itself:

Please conform to normal talk page courtesy

I've previously asked Mbz1 to conform to the usual norms of posting to talk pages with respect to indentation, placement of posts, etc. In particular, I've objected to her habit of positioning her talk-page contributions above previously-posted replies when both her comment and the previously-posted reply are responding to the same message. Doing so disrupts the temporal continuity of the thread, entirely unnecessarily, and gives her reply an unwarranted prominence relative to other, previously-posted replies. When I corrected yet another recent example of her doing this, with an edit-summary pointer to an explanation of the normal courtesy used in this regard she ignored that, and reinstated her top-post, above my own reply. This time, instead of moving her reply, I've merely restored my own to its original place in the temporal sequence, and I would ask her not to interfere with that again. I would also ask her (again) to take notice of wp:indent, which says, among other points of order, "If two replies are made to one specific comment, they should be at the same level of indentation with the later reply at the bottom." I am aware that this is an essay, but I don't appreciate her repeatedly placing her replies to a given post above my own, when mine were made first. In an already controversial setting, I consider her ongoing insistence on doing so combatative and disruptive, and I'd appreciate it if she'd stop.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A few moments ago Mbz1 deleted this section you're now reading suggesting "other venues" would be more appropriate. I'd prefer not to escalate this to AN/I, which would be my only alternative since after I made this post objecting to her manner of addressing others here, she asked me not to post to her talk page (scroll to end of diff). Article talk pages are indeed for improving articles, but in this circumstance they're also an appropriate place to address comments and behavior that create a battlefield environment. As you can see, I've now restored this section.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC) emphasis added

I see that besides her earlier mis-representation of one person's edit as "vandalism" and her comment about Roscelese saying that she "clearly has not a slightest idea what she was doing," Mbz1 has now characterized me as "cruel and stupid". This kind of behavior is really very charming ... and helpful.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The above is, of course, from the talk page (permalink) for the Koby Mandell and Josef Ishran murder article. In addition to deleting this section two times, she's also twice removed the POV tag placed on the article by two different editors, and twice characterized an editor's good-faith actions as "vandalism", first in an edit summary and then again in an edit summary and corresponding talk page post. As I said, I'd like to avoid drama over this, but I haven't seen that WQA is effective for situations like this one, either, so whatever assistance you or any admin could provide would be welcome. Thanks very much,  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope no one thinks this is canvassing as you are deeply, currently, involved, but I have now posted an AE about Mbz1. Passionless -Talk 00:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No, of course it's not canvassing; I expected you'd let me know of any subsequent actions concerning this, and you're right to do so. I'd actually been considering opening an AN/I thread about Mbz1's misuse of sources, which has been very troubling to me for quite some time, and which is in evidence again with respect to this most recent article. I'm not sure if I'll post that (or anything else) to the ArbCom thread you've now started, but I did notice that you'd commented there about Mbz1 having made a racist comment.

That's a very ugly word, but you're not alone in having found it necessary to apply it to one of her comments. I suggest you look at this recent AfD for her "Blame Israel first" creation. If you search for the word "racist" there, and read the subsequent comments, you'll see that four editors (including myself) found her very harsh and ethnically-motivated dismissal of a reliable-source journalist merely because of his nationality to be racist.

She demanded that I retract the word, here on my talk page. I carefully considered the request, and then tried very gently to explain why I couldn't honor it. I'd really hoped she'd continue the discussion with me, and that we could come to some amicable resolution, but she refused to do that. You might find that AfD, and especially the subsequent discussion here to be relevant to your post at ArbCom. For example, despite her explicit protests to the contrary here, I remain wholly unconvinced that she'd consider a similarly accusational dismissal of comments made by a Jewish journalist as anything other than racist.  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)