User talk:Nagromtpc/Archive 2006

Welcome to my talk page. Leave me a message here. If you add sections manually, please at them at the bottom. Cpt. Morgan / Reinoutr

Please note that I might answer on this page if you post here, to keep the discussions coherent.

Mistake

Hello, you messaged me saying I had vandalised Sir John Deane's College - why? I was reverting vandalism, and mistakenly reverted to a version which had also been vandalised - no vandalism was intentional on my part.RWhite 16:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was a bit quick in adding the remark on your page. When I looked at your contribution page I noticed that it must have been a mistake and I removed the comment from your page right after that. Cpt. Morgan 16:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Zoroaster

22:37, 16 February 2006 User:Zmmz:
It is immensely relevant that the statement about the origin of Angels be put right there in the first paragraph--not somewhere hidden among the more irrelevant texts. The statement answers the most important question everyone has; that is, where did angelology and demonology come from? The overwhelming majority of scholars on Bible history now agree it came from Persia. It is not a controversy, unless you want it to be, so it can serve your purpose. If the most popular and respected Bible Encyclopedias say it came from Zoroaster, through The Persian Empire--then it should be good enough.

Now that you have added the correct reference, in some cases put the text at more approriate positions and rephrased a little I have no longer objections to your statements. Prior, however, you were just adding the exact same sentence to a large number of articles, which gave the impression you were pressing through your opinion, rather than adding information. Good luck with your futur Wikipedia contributions... Cpt. Morgan 12:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo

Hi Cpt. Morgan, glad I could find a commong language, and understanding with you in the Kosovo page. But I am afraid you should have more nerves, if you plan to edit in that page more often. There are people who are sworn to wage revert wars, and are disrespectful of any Wikipedia rule of conduct...or any civil behavior whatsoever. So bear up with them :). I would be happy to discuss anything related to the article in general. 20:20, 23 May 2006 User:Ilir pz (howdy) '

Hey Ilir, I noticed the ongoing revert wars yes. Seems like a heated debate. I will monitor the page the coming time to try to keep it cool there. But since I am neither from kosovo nor serbia (I am dutch) I will only try to keep it NPOV, I have no real opinion on the matter. Cpt. Morgan 22:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hoe gaat het, Reinoutr? Yes, I realized that you were Dutch, and the fact that you decided to contribute matters a lot to maintain the NPOV in the heated debate in Kosovo article. Hope to hear from you again sometime. By the way, I loved the Netherlands during a trip I took there. An amazing place, with very nice people. See the list of cities I visited in my userpage. I even took part on the Queen's Day (long party) ..lovely indeed. Best, ilir_pz 20:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hoe gaat het, in my language would be "Si je" (read: see yeh). For the rest I will answer in the talk page of Kosovo. Dank je, ilir_pz 23:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, was the "third opinion" the thing you thought I would consider a threat? :) 11:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi cpt. Morgan, sure I understand your point.Hope smth changes, as well. Thanks for your efforts, anyways. Doei,ilir_pz 11:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hoi, I put some comment in the Kosovo talk page. I think it is already a compromise from my side. Not a compromise, but according to the documents that are (unfortunately) in power in Kosovo as of now. Sorry I wasn't around for some time, had stuff to do, and just realized I was blocked :)). Doei,ilir_pz 19:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I responded to your comments in my talk page. I might be on and off tomorrow, hope you are not in a rush to start the proposals you mentioned. I appreciate your efforts, still. When you think better, the whole intro page will have to be changed in a couple of months, as Kosovo's formal recognition of independence is just a few months far :), and then most of us will feel stupid for wasting so much time, instead of just referring to some temporary UNSCR 1244. As simple as that. Anyways...TTYL, ilir_pz 22:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. I replied, again. Take care, ilir_pz 23:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is my preliminary version, which complies with all 3 points that you asked me to comply with: 1) It does state that Kosovo is administered by the UN, 2) it does state Kosovo is part of a larger union/country (FRY) as defined by 1244 Resolution and 3) it should state that Kosovo will most likely become indepedent in the near future, as indicated by Contact Group statements.

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is a region in southeast Europe. By the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (adopted in 1999), Kosovo is placed under United Nations administration, though de-jure it is still defined as a part of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but and runs independently of the latter. De-facto the province is run by its Provisional Institutions of Self-Government and the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and Kosovo Police Service.

Talks on the future status of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia. The negotiations are mediated by the international community, and enforced by the Contact Group [1]. The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006, and indications show that the settlement will have to be acceptable to the people of Kosovo[2] the majority of which seek recognition of full independence for the province.

Take care, ilir_pz 12:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I posted a little modified version in the Kosovo talk page. Doei, ilir_pz 13:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the version I gave in Kosovo talk page is sufficient as of now, and as I said, it complies with all three requests you posed to me, and has credible sources cited. Sure, go ahead with the voting...hope not many sockpuppets do the "thing" there, as I know that there are many. ilir_pz 11:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hoi Reinoutr, sorry for being absent for some time. I read your comment in my talk page and answered briefly. I will get back to you soon. Regards, ilir_pz 11:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Kosovo

Hi Reinoutr, Please have a look at this template, where Ilir is also insisting on imposing his personal views. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 19:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

wowowow, try to refrain from pointing your finger to me for nothing. Check my edits and then do so. No reason to panic for nothing. ilir_pz 00:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ilir, the point is you would not accept that Kosovo is recognised as a province of Serbia, still part of Serbia and Montenegro (till the commonwealth dissolves itself, of course). You have been given all sort of facts and maps and you would still not cave in. Checking your last reply to Osli proves my point even more. I would like to remind you to check WP:OWN. Remember to agree to disagree. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 00:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agreed to disagree far too much by now, and you know it. Don't just negate the truth. If I were to disagree, things would have been much different. And no, I do not think Kosovo is a province of Serbia, you cannot get me to accept that, ever! As it is not according to the Resolution 1244, and I just don't like it :)). ilir_pz 00:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I told you before this is not about what you or anyone else like but about facts. And the fact is that you would rather edit-war against the rest of the world than accepting this. If you do not accept consensus I will have to ask for a request for comments as this has gone too far already. Anyway, enough is enough. This is someone else's talk page (please accept my apologies). E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 01:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear people, since this dispute (both Kosovo and Template:Kosovo) is not likely to end this way, I will watch the discussions on the talk pages for a few more days and then continue with the next step in dispute resolution, which in this case will be to have a vote on what the opening paragraph of the Kosovo article will be, according to Wikipedia:Straw_polls, giving people several options to choose from. But first, we will watch it for a few more days to see if other editors will give their opinion. Do not worry, I will not start a poll without consulting both of you and User:Osli73. Finally, just a reminder that my talk page is not the place to solve personal disputes between the two of you :). Cpt. Morgan 13:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not particularly happy with any version making predictions (being that independence or the most likely double autonomy). I do not think that wikipedia is the place for futurology in that sense. If anything, after the introductory definition, a sentence informing the reader on the fact that there are ongoing talks should be added. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 13:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am ok if you put such a statement in a separate sentence. As far as I am concerned we are not only talking about the first sentence, but about the first paragraph (the introduction). Stating that there are ongoing talks about independence for Kosovo fulfills the 3rd criterium enough for me. Cpt. Morgan 19:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we ought to differentiate between agreed facts and speculation. Regarding Osli73, I agree with his position on principle that some things are not debatable but considering the article is in a deadlock, I cannot see an alternative. I reckon we could well create a subpage at Talk:Kosovo/Straw Poll to suggest the possible options and organise the poll. Thanks and regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 20:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Futurology is also speculating with who has the legal rights on Kosovo, without any such indication by the UN Security council. It is not futurology to cite the Contact Group's conclusions, which openly state that the will of the majority of the population in Kosovo will be respected. I think Reinoutr's suggestion about that is more than legitimate. ilir_pz 14:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ilir, why does everytime I leave a comment on any other user's talk page you turn up from nowhere? It is totally obvious I was not addressing to you (I know perfectly well where your talk page is). People can talk for themselves, you know? There is no need to reply for them. Please stop shadowing me. I do not feel comfortable. Thanks, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 20:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Asterion I do not care what you talk to other users. In this case we are both discussing with Reinoutr. Whenever I am involved in a dispute and you mention my name or point the finger toward me for something, I do have the right to participate. In the particular case I have more than right to participate, and you know it. If you feel uncomfortable, do not mention my name in a discussion. cpt Morgan, sorry I had to leave this comment here, yet again. Regards, ilir_pz 23:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil Ilir:) C-c-c-c 23:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Reinoutr, I've thought things through and I have proposed to Asterion to make a common proposal. Osli73 20:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the version we agreed on. Thanks, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 12:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is an autonomous province in southern Serbia. Following the Kosovo War in 1999, Kosovo was placed under United Nations temporary administration (UN Security Council Resolution 1244). Although it legally remains a part of Serbia, it is in fact run independently of Belgrade by the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government. Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and the Kosovo Police Service.

Talks on the future status of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia. The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006.

Dear Asterion and Osli73, thank you for your version. I am waiting on the last comments that TheTom gives on the version by Ilir, so he can incorporated those if he wants to. I appreciate the efforts that are now undertaken by TheTom, but I am afraid it will also not lead to a way out of this stalemate. Before starting a poll, I will also talk to him. Cpt. Morgan 15:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Reinoutr, I am in no rush to start the vote. I would suggest to create a clean subpage and list the proposals so far. I really would like for anyone involved to have the opportunity to have their say. This way we guarantee a higher degree of consensus. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 21:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Reinoutr, please see my comments to your recent entry on my Talk page.Osli73 08:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize

...that I was so careless. P. S. I have noticed your generally negative attitude towards me as a person. Why the fire? ;) --HolyRomanEmperor 15:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Understood! --HolyRomanEmperor 16:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

One of the comments you removed has been certainly written by a sockpuppet of a previously perma-blocked user, Hipi Zhdripi. This is why I expressed my concern on the possibility of sockpuppets before... --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 16:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless both the sockpuppet and the puppeteer vote, I do not consider it a big problem. If that happens, we should inform an administrator I suppose. Cpt. Morgan 17:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved to subpage

Good morning, Reinoutr. I have moved the ongoing discussion on the intro changes to a subpage. I also think we should do some archiving for the main Talk:Kosovo page, as it is incredibly long and takes absolute ages to load up when editing. As it stands, it is 256Kb instead less than 80Kb as advised. The problem is that you are only meant to archive finished discussions but that, on a subject like this, is totally impossible! Cheers, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 09:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I noticed your did that Asterion, I think it is a good choice. Maybe it will also keep less serious people out of the discussion. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing PROD Tags

PROD tags can be removed by anyone without any questions asked. It's just a proposal for deletion, this just keeps Wikipedia honest and keeps an influx of rules from bogging us down. Thank you, btw, for your contributions. I'm taking the article to AfD. Yanksox ^(talk) 14:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me, but it was listed as a non-copyright violating copy/paste, so I just started cleaning up the article. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's fine, I listed it originally for copy and paste since a copyright wasn't established till I went further and did find copy-vio. So, still thank you. :) Yanksox ^(talk) 14:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Shrivaishnavism

Hi, great to find you wikifying the captioned page, jsut created by me. --Bhadani 15:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! --Bhadani 15:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome, but I regularly wikify new and unwikified pages, regardless of the topic. However, I must say you make very good new topics, so keep up the good work! Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Admin Tony

Hi, thanks for the note. Unfortunately, I don't think I should really speak my mind on this matter, as I was recently involved in another dispute with this very admin and I would not be surprised if he reads this. For the sake of remaining civil and in good faith, I will leave it at that.

On the subject of other admins, however, I'm sure that eventually someone else will come along and get involved. It is, after all, posted on the Admin noticeboard, and most admins check new posts regularly, as far as I know. I think that the actions taken by this user are wrong, and I'm sure that many others would agree with us. It's only a matter of time. romarin [talk ] 21:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tony

Hi Reinoutr, or Cpt. Morgan if you prefer. I've worked with Tony Sidaway a bit, and I would say he's kind of an old-school administrator, who remembers when Wikipedia was far less rule-bound than it seems to be now — and it's still pretty anarchic in many ways. I know he can come across as rather abrasive and opinionated, but I believe he has a deep understanding of the project we're working on, and his positive contributions to the encyclopedia are significant enough to convince a lot of people to give him pretty free rein. A lot of others disagree, as Romarin indicated above. I won't say he's an uncontroversial guy, but he's definitely someone you can talk to about your concerns. I've seen him be very communicative with editors who approach him in a collegial spirit, but he's also got buttons you can push. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

GTBacchus puts it very well (thanks GT for saving me the trouble!). Tony often takes bold and controversial actions. Sometimes people disagree with these actions that they find it necessary to block him - but notice also, as you pore through his block log, that he is also unblocked pretty often. I firmly believe that he always intends to act for the best interest of Wikipedia. The way he goes about it might not sit too well with everyone, but more often than not he turns out to be right. FreplySpang 00:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a perfectly sound explanation, I didn't know the guy, so I was just checking :). Thanks for the information. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 00:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

TheCooler

I have explained this before in the noticeboard. I am not a new user, but a returning one. I hold no grudge over you reporting me. You thought it was the right thing to do, the same way I did when I removed the boxes. I admit it was an impulsive action that I took with no much reflection. Thanks TheCooler

Username

I did not realise that there was a rule against Arabic usernames. Wikipedia rules are obtuse and it is difficult to understand its complex procedures, so I didn't know this. I have changed my signature now. Thank you for your advice.--الأهواز | Hamid 10:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have just read another rule that says that if I obscure my username in any way it will be seen as disruptive. So, I have included both my first name and my username in my signature. Please tell me if that is acceptable.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo

The current intro is the worst that Kosovo article ever had. It is even worse than during Milosevic's regime in Kosovo. It is shocking to just read through it. I think I will get back to reverting those horrible parts. And I am more shocked that someone just decided to adopt it because some admin thought it is fair. And all those proposals, including your conditions, went down the drain? Even if I get blocked, I do not care. This version is just terrible. ilir_pz 11:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

What's this problem over Kosovo that you have with Ilir pz? --HolyRomanEmperor 15:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ilir, how can you say that the current intro on the Kosovo article "is even worse than during Milosevic's regime in Kosovo"? What, exactly, is it that is so shocking? Be specific. Also, I would hope that you would work with the other editors rather than becoming a renegade.Osli73 21:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

All of it is wrong, and much more pro-serbian than the version that existed before the protection was lifted. ilir_pz 11:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Reinoutr, for all your continued efforts. Do not take some people's attacks personally. I have been there myself. They are nice to you as long as you seem to agree with them. As I suspected, we now have a new batch of sockpuppets coming up too. On a different matter, really sorry about Holland being out of the World Cup :( --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 07:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Me too, I've always liked the Little Big Dutch. ;) --HolyRomanEmperor 13:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Both thanks for these comments :). However, I am not a big soccer fan myself, so it doesn't really bother me. With regard to the Kosovo article(s), I will try to keep an eye on them and see how things develop. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

TIBET ARTICLES

Hello. Yes I have edited a great deal but I knew about the links but I was using instead of [[ ]]. This is why it wasn't working! I am constantly amazed how many articles have not been started on Wikipedia. Tibet I have noticed has a number of even large towns/features/counties which haven't yet been covered, yet alone villages. I have a great deal of knowledge about Tibet to add to the project, a country I find particularly fascinating and am glad to add some of my knowledge to, to share and educate other people. I have started and written a good number of articles already. What do you think of the latest Tibetan contributions? James Janderson

Re: Single-celled Organisms

Of course, no problem for me. I was merely trying to keep consistent with existing redirects... Go and change them as you please... :))) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

TOWNS OF ASIA

hI. I am constantly amazed at how many large towns have not been covered by wikipedia!!! Some places that are important places in countries such as Nepal and Tibet are not yet covered. These articles should not only exist but should have a wealth of information about them, including their demographic, cultral, historical,features which should be added in detail.Wikipedia I learn is one of the most visited sites on the world Internet so really this info should exist. I think that we should all contribute to wikipedia to make it THE greatest compilement of human knowledge that ever existed free to everybody on the planet. I have begun by establishing geographical articles in some of my spare time in many of the relatively uncovered countries of Asia which will inevitably be added to at a later date. The article count for wikipedia should be 1,218,000,000 not the current!! I am also gradually learning to wikify-thanks for your help! I hope I am doing a good job of wikipedia!

James Janderson

Carol & Cheryl

Thanks for helping this page! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicoken (talk • contribs) .

JOE SATRIANI

HI. I AM A MAJOR FAN OF JOE SATRIANI AND PLAY ALONG WITH HIS CDS AND DVDS WITH THE AMP TURNED UP!! BUT HIS ARTICLE REALLY NEEDS A PICTURE AT THE BEGINNING. COULD YOU FIND ONE THAT IS FREE OF COPYRIGHT? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James Janderson (talk • contribs) .

Is there any way to get the deletion notes etc. rmeoved now the truth has been shown on the page? I'd like to finish the document.

MONGOL

hi i have now added hundreds and hundreds of new great articles to the project! but I want to start a new category of Mongol mythology. I have kind of done this but I want it to be a category on the Mythology by culture page. How can you do this? James Janderson 15:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

TIBET

HI. I have been doing a lot more more on Tibet its history and spiritual laeders and many others. I have done about 80% of the Potala palace article now and have done many others such as Tashilhunpo, Shalu Monastery, Ramoche Temple and others. I have even started the Tibetology article with some great commons photos. Check out all my work. I hope I am doing a valuable job for the wiki community. James Janderson 12:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation time on Kosovo

I don't think we're getting anywhere with the Kosovo introduction, particularly since Ferick has openly rejected WP:NPOV and is now refusing to discuss sources. Accordingly, I've submitted a request for mediation. Please indicate on that page whether you consent to having the matter mediated. -- ChrisO 09:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

THANKYOU

HI MATE THANKS. THAT MEANS A LOT TO ME. I FIGURE THAT STARTING NEW ARTICLES IS A GREAT WAY TO LAY A FOUNDATION FOR FURTHER EXPANSION. EVEN IF THEY ARE OF MINIMUM DETAIL THEY ARE A START. AS FOR ULTIMUS HE WAS QUICK TO POINT OUT MINOR FAULTS RATHER THAN FOCUS ON THE POSITIVE. IN THE UK NOBODY USES THE WORD 'PERIOD' FOR A FULL STOP , THEY USE IT FOR SOMETHING FEMALE RELATED IF YOU GET WHAT I MEAN!!!!! SO IT DIDN'T WRING A BELL AND ULTIMUS WAS PATRONSING IN NOT TELLING ME STRAIGHT AWAY. AS FOR HIS DERAGATORY AND SARCASTIC COMMENTS ABOUT 'STATUS ON WIKIPEDIA IS NOT BY HOW MANY ARTICLES YOU CREATE' I HAVE DONE A GREAT DEAL MORE THAN STARTING GEO-STUBS. READ MY ARTCILES WHICH ARE 95% MINE ON Potala Palace, Tashilhunpo, Ramoche Temple and Shalu Monastery. Contrary to Ultimus's beliefs that I am worthless I believe these articles reflect a good deal of quality work. I notice he didn't respond after reading them. Pointing out minor errors is fine for improvement but serious criticism is off-putting and will affect my contribution. My heart is in the right place and Ultimus is not going to intimidate me. Please tell Ultimus this. THANKS AGAIN FOR YOUR ENCOURAGEMENT IT IS VERY VALUABLE. I BELIEVE WHILE POINTING OUT ERRORS FOR IMPROVMENT WE SHOULD ENCOURAGE EACH OTHER NOT SLAG EACH OTHER OFF. PLEASE RESPOND, REGARDS, James Janderson 12:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Dumont

i am sorry nae probem ya big fanney yi. Jimmy Dumont 21:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfeatured Characters

Hi. I'm sorry if my explanation is a bit confusing. It basically means the characters on that page were created by the Awdry's (either Wilbert or Christopher), but never featured in any stories. The reason is unknown, but we do know they exist, as they information written about them in the Thomas info books (Like 'Thomas the Tank Engine Man' and 'Sodor:Reading Between the Lines).

Hope this helps,

Thomasfan. :)

Hi. I know this is an old comment, but if you look at the page now you will see that the introduction has been re-written to make it clearer what the page describes. I had the same problem with text as you did, even though I already knew what Thomasfan was trying to say!

EdJogg 09:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Good job, I already changed it a little myself, but since you apparently are familiar with the topic you did a better job. Happy editing, Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Adw

Re: Public transport connecting to The Hague: Please use Template:Adw when you propose a deletion.--Patrick 14:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not generally do that, to prevent people from "defending" their articles. For the same reason of neutrality, I never give a vote myself in a AfD or TfD that I put up. This way, the deletion discussion is mainly by neutral editors. But I will notify you in the future if I put up an article for deletion in which you were one of the last active editors. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Proto's gamecruft page

I'd be happy to demonstrate that I am actually an established user (being an admin isn't really the important part) if it's somehow important to you, but I'd really rather not have my username in the history of what is, essentially, a hit page, even if I agree with it and am willing to clean it up. I guess I'm just a wimp that way.

That said, I wasn't aware of the ongoing discussion on Proto's talk page about the chess articles; I thought they were just more griping by someone whose article had been deleted. 4.245.75.36 22:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Its difficult to communicate with you this way, since you keep changing IP address. Perhaps you can make a sockpuppet account just for this (it is allowed to have sockpuppets, contrary to what many people think)? With regards to the chess articles, they are half serious / half to make a point. So I would appreciate it if they would stay there for now. In my opinion, the fight against gamecruft is getting crufty itself, which is dangerous. A page like Proto's makes it look like the fight is more important than the cause. And whether or not these articles should stay is often still highly controversial, even though the deletion-side, so to speak, is winning most of the AfDs. I'd rather see a policy than these AfD fights over and over again. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the only reason I haven't made a sock is because I'm lazy, and I don't really intend to make any controversial edits while logged out. If Proto wants chess articles on his list, Proto gets chess articles on his list, and I won't remove them twice. (I really did think it was vandalism.) I've mostly just been editing to update the status of AFDs, mark out finished tasks, add new AFDs, remove redundant stuff, etc. If you want to get a hold of me, though, I'll be watching here on my real account.

A page like Proto's makes the it look like the fight is more important than the cause.

Bingo. While I consider it a useful tool and one I'm willing to maintain, I want to disassociate myself from the crusade. If nothing else, I'd rather not declare myself the enemy of people I work with every day on articles over something stupid like articles for Homeworld starships and such silliness.

As for policy, there's a useful conversation going on at the video game Wikiproject. It's unlikely to come up with binding policy, but probably likely to come up with a relevant clarification in the project's MOS, which is a start. 4.245.75.36 22:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You have to be an academic

... or a lawyer to try such low down contemptable political tricks!

Don't have much respect for another's opinion nor their efforts either bigshot! Fixing these two things up is trivial! So much for YOUR fancy degree and demonstrated lack of judgement and conscience!

• Keep/Hold The template incorporates the {{mapeuc}} template several times and I despise bullies and backstabbers and arm chair sea-lawyers that beat up on something or someone without even trying to improve it. Either improvement suggested above does that little thing above, so give Patrick a chance to refine this one too. This page is not supposed to be a political battle ground used by an editor without a conscience to attack the good faith efforts of another, however unskilled or inexperienced.

There you have it. A outsider's mirror into your soul. May God help you. // FrankB 19:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

re: fabartus#About_TfD

With regard to your comment I despise bullies and backstabbers and arm chair sea-lawyers that beat up on something and someone without even trying to improve it, I would like to ask you to remember to assume good faith and make no personal attacks.

I calls it like I sees it. I don't consider stating a frankly formed opinion a personal attack. Particularly, when I went out of my way to make it known to you directly on your talk.

Then to the templates. This has not been an editing dispute. The original article that both were used in was deleted at July 19 (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public transport connecting to The Hague), to be recreated (identically, but with a template substituted instead of included) and speedy deleted on July 20.

Nominated by yourself, and then seconded by a whopping two whole others. That's the sort of multi-level attack which got my dander up. What about the appeals period? Do you really think such parlimentary crap speaks well of you? At least allow for things to settle.

So at the time I posted the two TfDs (July 19), they were not used. My main objection to Template:mapeuc and hence the other template which consists for 50% of several mapeuc inclusions is that is disturbs the layout of articles in which they are used.

I won't dignify the percentages, because he didn't bother to categorize them or others would have applied them, improved them, etc. but I will note that Patrick seems to have lacked a bit of presentation common sense in the matter, and in using categories overall. Also, I'm more than a little tired of making tools, then having no time to apply such, have someone come along and nominate same for deletion because I haven't had time to get back to wikipedia myself, or was hung up on other business over on the commons, etc. So 'unused' is not an argument I can swallow easily in any case... it still spits on a good faith effort by someone, that may catch on or recieve wide usage down the road. In the case of these three, I'm willing to predict at least one will become fairly popular, at least as a fad given a seed of say twenty articles mininum for a start.

Jumping to the below: "Your Nom" covered above... I just now catted both those variants, and that's the seventh or eighth I did such today for him, including the three I nominated for Tfd. Why (for Pete's sake) didn't you mention 'Template:mapeuc vs. Template:mapeu' in your nomination? (I'm also redoing all these notes, since the browser decided not to save the prior unpreviewed edit buffer! God, what I would do for a WYSIWIG editor for wikipedia. This is so seventies in so many ways!

For an example (that I also mentioned in the TfD), see this [3] old version of Railway_stations_in_the_Netherlands, under the letter D. Your first alternative solves this problems largely, but such a template already exists: Template:Mapeu. The second alternative you suggest makes the disturbtion of articles only worse because it is broader and higher than the original, interfering even more with the body of the text of articles. With regard to your suggestion of a subpage, such a thing no longer exists (WP:SP).

That link is also a smoking gun showing your action in removing the suddenly unused template, which, iirc, is something Patrick also noted on the Tfd, but which I saw independently. You have to own that your
       A) nominating the article for Afd,
       B) removing the template,
       C) followed by nominating it for being unused
       D) all looks suspicious when taken together.

       Perhaps you need to hurry less quickly to 'clean things up'? There was no urgency I can see. Put subsequent actions on a to-do list for action a few weeks off, would make you look a whole lot better! So, I'm sorry if I mis-read such a concantation of circumstances, but they do look suspicious from my shoes! Besides, and Afd nomination is kind of the ultimate slap in the face, wouldn't you agree? How can that not be an editorial dispute?

My second was a two minute one-pass trial... and my comments I thought made it plain that such should be developed into a 2X narrow template of two or three rows (working google maps and google.earth into it, if possible) and be presented as a table with borders and 'window pane dividers', as it were. Envision as a drawing of three rows of two childrens blocks stacked side by side three high rendered in two dimensions, the 'source' occupying a centered place of honor as a heading of sorts.

Some data1	Some data2
Some data3	Some data4

or somthing along the lines of the below, with inside div style= statements defining a border so you see the block image I tried to discribe. If that's not clear, ask, and I'll dig up an example. (and no, I don't know why the second example is compressed... no time now! <g>)

Some data1 Some data2 Some data3 Some data4

Where the second data set in each column is in the box, and each limited to there half having a verticle dividing line too. (I'm rushed at the moment, so must close.)

On subpages, the truth is History_of_India/Vedic_Civ_test (Just created) still works fine. While the practice was discouraged, 'real breakage' (Unintended consequences) and real editorial need kept the feature, so the guideline is in need of revision of said error... They are by no means disabled as it bluntly states. I'll have to db-author that demo in a bit, but I'm necessarily going to use a number of them in one project, where main articles are not warranted, yet need exists in a dozen other pages for the same detail, should the reader want to follow the link.

I hope to have clarified my reasons for TfD in these cases and please understand that I have no personal grudge against you or Patrick (who is far from an inexperienced editor btw). Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but mind such combinations of actions can seem to be an assault. I can see from the complexity of some of his templates, he's not a total tyro, but the lack of categorization is at best improper, and the lack of follow through on placing such on more pages really suggests a great distractability... Perhaps, he's AD/HD like myself? Please forgive the harsh thoughts, but the track record, esp. with you as the nominee brought up an unpleasant memory of being on the recieving end of such an attack... whether is it was meant as one or not, the aroma stinks, N'est pas? I don't know anything about either of you, but once in a while, I get on my 'suit of shining armor' based on what I've seen, and tilt at a windmill or three. Apparently, I was in error in this case, as Patrick is using template space as he should user/subpages. Best regards, // FrankB 22:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Got and anwsered both your messages on Fabartus#Counterpoints. I'll be interested in seeing if you have any advice on the sub-pages issue. Best regards, // FrankB 14:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bafendo

Your vote on this was a little bit strange - you said "Delete per reasons above by Bafendo", however, Bafendo was listing the reasons not to delete. I don't know which one you meant ("Delete per reasons above by ((Users who support deletion)) or "Keep per reasons above by Bafendo"), but maybe fix it to avoid a misunderstanding. Cheers, Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 10:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It was a bit of a joke, the rant by Bafendo contained enough reason why the article should be deleted. But I'll change it to clarify. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, didn't pick up the humour *goes humour-spotting to gain some experience* Sorry :P Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 10:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Counter strike article

Hi Reinoutr. I've restored the newer version. Cheers. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Black Cop Sources

Thank you for your help. Let me know what you can find on the subject, I'm looking around as well. --Stukov 16:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Re : liberal interpretation of AfD rules

Thanks for your message. I've explained on the talk page in question. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 09:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Not usual practice, at least IMO. Personally I'll close AfDs once it reaches 120 hours. - Mailer Diablo 09:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know that one of the AfDs you closed recently is mentioned in a discussion I started on the AfD talk page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Too liberal closure and deletion_during_AfD. Best regards, Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for this heads-up, but I didn't close the AfD. It was closed by Fang Aili and I tidied up the AfD after him/her as a housekeeping measure. This has been copied to Fang Aili's Talk page. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  13:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I know you didn't perform the delete, its just to let you know and I also already informed Fang Aili. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ferick RfC

I've posted a user-conduct request for comments on Ferick following his latest bout of edit-warring - it's time to put an end to it. Please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ferick. -- ChrisO 01:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Garage parking

Hi Reinoutr - next time you redirect an article, can you check its whatlinkshere, please - you left a double-redirect from Garage Parking which I've just fixed! Grutness...wha? 00:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it, I forgot to check this time. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Empty categories

In 4 days just go back to the category and see if it's empty. If you're asking about the speedy criteria, see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Did I answer your question? --Fang Aili ^talk 13:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? I thought the category was created today. I will check again. Actually I don't know for sure how to tell if a category has been empty for 4 days. Usually when they're deleted it's pretty obvious that they've been empty for a long time, or are just not useful. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad. It was created on 9 November and I read "9 August", today. I've deleted it. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Chemistry

I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry. Cheers! --HappyCamper 23:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

reply

Hi, yes I would know exactly how I could adapt my software to calculate this, would you like the results in bands e.g. 10,000 articles have 0 links, 15,000 have 1-5 links etc. etc.? This would be fairly simple. Martin 12:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There are also detailed statistics here, if that is of any use. Martin 13:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, rather recklessly i'll dump the results here, remove them if you like. I didnt do it in ranges in the end, it was easier to do the frequency for each number of links. Let me know if there is any other statistics or whatever (word count, character count etc.) The values are tab separated, so you should be able to copy it straight into a spreadsheet. (Links value 1999 is actually >1999) Martin 14:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

List moved

Sure is, it's because we have pages like Olympic medalists in athletics (men). Martin 14:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo infobox

It seems that the Kosovo article will continue to stirr contraversy until the end of the year. I believe we, the non-involved directly in their conflict need to help in making the article balanced. I made my suggestion fully in good faith. Could you please replace the infobox?

The arguments are as follows:

1. Kosovo i governed by Resolution 1244 which establishes UNMIK;

2. UNMIK does not recognise any symbols but the PISG Logo in tandem with the UN flag (read the directive above);

3. The PISG Logo is used in all official kosovo documents etc. (Official gazette, official websites, border crossings etc.);

4. As such, the PISG Logo in tandem with the UN flag are the provisional symbols of Kosovo, until the status of Kosovo is decided;

5. The PISG logo entails the combination of symbols from the UN flag, EU flag and the map of Kosovo in colors that are neither Albanian nor Serb.

6. The Logo has been designed and approved by the UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK).

7. In the following picture it is seen the former President of Kosovo Rugova, in front of the Kosovo flag which is not accepted by UNMIK (right) as the official flag of Kosovo as UNMIK insists that the only official symbol of Kosovo is the PISG Logo in tandem with the UN flag. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ibrahim_Rugova_portrait.jpg Vezaso 01:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Need some advice.

Hi there. You seem like someone who knows what they are talking about, so I was wondering if you could advise me on an issue? I am fairly new to wikipedia and as such have made some mistakes along the way, mainly getting into arguments regarding stuff I edited that was reverted. One gentleman has taken it upon himself to put my talk page on "watch" and to basically edit any mistakes I make on it. I have told him to cease editing my board because he is deliberately targeting me. He has ignored anything I posted in regards to the issue and continues to edit my talk page. I was wondering what options I have to get this person to stop this? Is there a board of admins that can discuss my case?

Any information appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowbound (talk • contribs) 23:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

My Mistake

Apologies, now I understand the rules of Arbitration.Tonycdp 16:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo arbitration

Thanks for the invitation. As you are probably aware I gave up on the article after some editors decided to boycott the consensus decision. I had previously done so but came back in order to express my views and obtain a permanent settlement for the more controversial part (i.e. the intro text). As far as I see it, the main problems with the article are: Not respecting consensus by some editors (Ilir pz, Dardan V, Hipi Zhdripi, etc), petty edit-warring as a result (mainly over trivial things such as removing alternative spellings, but also over more important issues such as maps and infoboxes) and also sockpuppetry (not so much of a problem now than five-six months ago), plus some sporadic trollish behaviour. The thing is that while someone is only concerned about getting the article to be the "right version", no progress is possible. In this sense, I applaud ChrisO for showing up and being bold, while most other admins had shied away for too long. I proposed in the administrators noticeboard the possibility of a code of conduct for controversial issues like this some time ago[4]. Nevertheless, the will needs to exist to abide to it and, at the moment, this is *not* the case. Instead, there seems to exist no respect for verifiable references by some editors if these happen to go against their particular point of view. It is also quite peculiar how neutral editors are usually attacked and smeared. This campaign has driven away many other good editors and kept other admins away from the subject too (I cannot help but to share their sense of despairness sometimes). Personally, I cannot see a way forward but would like to see how the RfA works out. Best wishes, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 18:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I perfectly understand how you feel. Thanks for all your efforts, you're one of the most level-headed people I've ever encountered in wikipedia indeed. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 20:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the arbitration, Reinoutr. I agree that it's necessary, unfortunately. I've added my comments. -- ChrisO 20:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This case is going to be a rather complex one due to the large number of users involved. I would prefer to simplify the evidence-giving stage to make it easier for the Arbitration Committee - how would you feel about giving a joint statement of evidence? I'm happy to make a start on such a statement, which you'd be free to endorse, add to or modify as you wish. -- ChrisO 20:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

More on Kosovo arbitration

Hello Cpt. Morgan How do I set up a page similar to the one ChrisO has already compiled here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ChrisO/Kosovo_evidence?

Thanks Tonycdp 14:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Cpt. Morgan - I have skimmed the arbitration, and intend make some kind of contribution, time permitting - Kind of busy in work right now. Davu.leon 15:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 16:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just added the joint statement of evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo/Evidence. -- ChrisO 00:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

striking votes by others

Dear Editor, I reverted the edit where you applied a strikethrough on a vote by another editor in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darrell Bock. That is considered very inappropriate. Alternatively, you can add a comment why you disagree with that vote, as you already did. In addition, on most AfDs, one vote will not make the difference. Best regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

One vote doesn't make a difference and anon. user votes aren't usually counted. Here's the background you missed: 205.157.110.11 (talk · contribs) voted on only four AfD the last AfD votes 205.157.110.11 made that were not Gastrich-my AfDs on August 30, 2006 (five days before). These articles created by

Gastrich 1 anon Gastrch 2user who made 5 edits. Jason_Gastrich (talk · contribs) was caught pushing POV and is banned from wikipedia.

The previous day my AfDs also go hit my a Use_Your_Naugin (talk · contribs) who first edits were on my AfDs and were Gastrich related(note user's edits on Lousiana Baptist University). This was brought to an admisntrators attention [5] and those votes were lined out my me.

With that in mind from the previous day and that banned Jason_Gastrich (talk · contribs) watches some of his articles still I warned an adminst. to expect[6] puppets before this anon appeared. This anon. user directly came to four AfDs. Arbusto 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Kudos for account boxes

Wanted to let you know that I admire the way you have listed your additional wiki accounts on your user page. It's very wiki-looking with the boxes and yet easy to navigate with. And since it is all template included, it makes it easy to copy to other wikis. I may just steal, er, reuse some of that GFDL wiki-code, and incorporate onto my pages. Well done. — MrDolomite | Talk 15:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

George Bush talk pag

Thanks for moving it. I didn't notice my mistake. Again thanks. Gdo01 21:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Temporary injunction in the Kosovo arbitration

For the duration of this case, any of the named parties may be banned by an uninvolved administrator from Kosovo or related pages for disruptive edits.

You are receiving this message because you are one of those covered by this injunction.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

300 degree club

Hi, I noticed you tagged 300 degree club as a candidate for speedy deletion with rationale "hoax". As a technical point you may not be aware of, "hoax" isn't a valid criterion for speedy; determining whether or not an article constitutes a hoax belongs in an AfD discussion. Anyway, I think you are correct and that it is a hoax, so I nominated the article for AfD. Just to let you know. --- Deville (Talk) 14:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Tonycdp

Please look at his contributions. After I made North Kosovo and explained it at Talk:Kosovo#Northern_Kosovo, he made a mockery of it, created Southern North Kosovo and West Kosovo and said that Corn Fields of North Kosovo must be made. He's arguements at User_talk:Tonycdp and edits mean that he is 99% possibility a sockpuppet (User:Dardanv?). He again made a mockery at Talk:Kosovo#Northern_Kosovo, and I can't tell if that was sarcasm or confirmation of the sockpuppetry (Dardanv is known to talk like that). --HolyRomanEmperor 17:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

On Point Wikipedia mentions

Wikipedia tends to frown upon article-space references to itself placed there solely because this project is Wikipedia. The appropriate place to mention your content is WP:PRESS. æ² ✆ 2006-10-06t13:43z

FYI

Had you read the comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truth theory (3rd nomination) by GRBerry? He sums up the situation quite well:

Comment Merging following a keep consensus would be legitimate. Merging following no consensus is even more legitimate. There isn't a problematic overriding of AFD consensus visible here. GRBerry 02:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course is it legitimate to merge after a keep or no consensus vote. Just as legitimate as restoring the article after it has been changed to a redirect. There had been revert-warring between people wanting a redirect/delete and people wanting it kept as it was. I hoped the new AfD would lead to consensus for one or the other option. There is no disagreement between my opinion and that of GRBerry on this matter. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No one but yourself and the banned user who wrote that POV fork has any interest in keeping it so far as I can tell. I have no objection to an article on Truth theory, but as that is covered so thoroughly in Truth#Major theories of truth including Substantive theories of truth: Correspondence theory, Coherence theory, Constructivist theory, Consensus theory, Pragmatic theory; Minimalist (deflationary) theories of truth, Performative theory of truth, Redundancy and related theories; Other theories of truth: Kripke's theory of truth, Semantic theory of truth. Anything worthwhile on Truth theory is already merged into the Truth article, and many theories have their own articles. With this knowledge, may I ask why you want to keep a POV fork written by a banned editor to promote his own personal viewpoint? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I certainly do not want to keep the article. I was merely (and naively) hoping a clear AfD results could be obtained for an article that appears to have merits, but also clearly a lot of issues. It would have greatly helped if anyone would have taken the time to make a more clear case in the AfD discussion, like you just did above. I am willing to retract the AfD nomination. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The results obtained before were consistent with merge and redirect, which was done. You cannot withdraw your nomination, that is out-of-process. You can, however, post a Delete and redirect position, as there is nothing worthwhile left to merge into Truth. Afd noms can only be withdrawn before there are any "Delete" votes, resulting in a Speedy keep. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The results obtained before were also consistent with keeping the article. And redirecting the article during the AfD, as Banno did, was also "out-of-process", as you call it. With regard to AfD, I do not know all the details, but a retraction after a couple of keep votes indeed is a bit ackward, come to think of it :). I'll vote and we'll see what happens.--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, Banno was clearly out-of-process, and was reverted. Banno is a very good editor, who has been dealing with Jon Awbrey too long and its been frustrating for him. Note: User:Jon Awbrey has now created two more ban-evading socks to comment in this afd, bringing the tally of known socks up to 53. Its a pity he didn't mean it when he posted his incredibly long "exit interview" on the en mailing list. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Reflecting on the situation, I probably should have had some faith in the other editors involved. Well, never too late too learn I suppose :). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

(Reduce indent) No worries, I can see how it must have looked to a new-comer to the situation. Jon Awbrey has exhausted several of us - and we're all a little bit curt on the topic of his one-man campaign to restore his verbose, obfuscated, useless essay on his personal version of "truth theory" (which covers none of the accepted theories of truth) so I imagine it looked a little like witch-hunting and/or harassment. You handled the situation with grace and intelligence, and I am impressed. If you're ever bored to tears, you might want to read the following:

• The June and July en mailing list archives - a thread in several chunks all with the subject line "Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey" - be sure to look for all the bits.
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive131#User:Jon_Awbrey and Wikipedia:Wikilawyering
• and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive134#User:Jon_Awbrey_project_spam
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jon Awbrey, all created since his ban. Note that one was a pun on my name, created specifically to revert me! (Gentle Rotweiler)
• And for a real treat, Jon's very own mailing list! You can read it all (better than Sominex!) or subscribe (not recommended) but not post. I suppose Jon thinks no one but Jon has anything worthwhile to say. stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
• Many whinings at WP Review, of course: wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=398

There is more, but I don't have time to list it all... I hope this gives you an idea why those of us who have had to deal with him are a wee tad reactionary. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (Talk:GoKrida AfD template)

That had been driving me crazy; I had wanted to make the template rather like you did, but I'm rather unfamiliar with templates, and had read elsewhere that leaving them separate was preferential. B7T 21:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, as far as I know there is no clear reason for not using a combined template. Happy editing, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD you closed recently

Just a quick heads-up. You seem to have forgotten to add the bottom of the AfD closure on "Getting pushed into bananas", which means that all the subsequent AfDs look closed. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Anon redirect to userpage

Thank you for the warning. Though the anon is me. I made the redirect. Sometimes I get logged out when I think I'm logged in (I think it happens when I take too long editing). It just happened again so I made the redirect. Jimp 08:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ODIS

RoninBK_ETC has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

I'm glad we could reach an agreement to the argument we had at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ODIS. --RoninBK_ETC 15:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the edits you added were sufficient to at least create a hung jury in the AfD debate. Congratulations. --RoninBK_ETC 22:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, but congratulations are not necessary. I have no affiliation with the article, other than that I felt it should not (yet) be deleted. We'll see how it turns out in the future. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

For edit warring, personal attacks, and other disruption, PerfectStorm/C-c-c-c is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year. For edit warring and incivility, Bormalagurski is banned from editing Wikipedia from one year. For edit warring and disruptive use of sockpuppets, Dardanv under any username or IP, is banned from editing Wikipedia for one month.

Hipi Zhdripi is limited to his one named account, Hipi Zhdripi. All edits by Hipi Zhdripi under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user.

Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso are banned for one year from editing articles related to Kosovo. Relation to Kosovo is to be interpreted broadly so as to prevent gaming. Either may be banned from any related non-article page for disruptive editing. All articles related to Kosovo are put on Article probation to allow more swift dealing with disruption. Editors of Kosovo and related articles who engage in edit warring, incivility, original research, or other disruptive editing, may be banned for an appropriate period of time, in extreme cases indefinitely.

ChrisO is warned not to engage in edit warring, and to engage in only calm discussion and dispute resolution when in conflict. He is instructed not to use the administrative rollback tool in content disputes and encouraged to develop the ability and practice of assisting users who are having trouble understanding and applying Wikipedia policies in doing so. .

Dardanv, Ferick, Laughing Man, Osli73, and Tonycdp are placed on Probation for one year. Each may be banned from any page or set of pages for disruptive edits, such as edit warring or incivility.

Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso, Dardanv, Ferick, Laughing Man, Osli73, and Tonycdp are placed on standard revert parole for one year. Each is limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, each is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, 03:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Don't remove my comments from discussions pages. Bunns USMC 08:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason I removed your comment was because it doess't deal with the article but is a discussion about GWB. Talk pages are meant for discussing the article, not the topic. Also, your choice of words is potentially inflammatory and uncivil. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I will post whatever comments I choose. If my words are inflammatory and uncivil, deal with it. Bunns USMC 09:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That is your good right, as it is my right to remove those comments if they are general conversation rather than discussion of the article. I have no intentions of removing them again at the moment, though. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Uses of the word F*ck

Dear Capt. Morgan,

I noticed that you yesterday changed back the f-count to 629.

I am Steve Anderson, the producer/director of the film. The count is 800+. The source cannot get better than me.

I have changed this numerous times on this page and it always gets changed back, perhaps by you. In the original cut of the film we stated that there were 629, though the count was tabulated before we added an ending section that had over 200 uses. The film screened a number of times in that version, hence it's mention in the press and on imdb. Subsequent editing of the film brough the count to a verified 800. A close captioned script compiled for the film also confirms this.

It is being released in the states on Nov. 10th 2006, and ON SCREEN in the film states that there are 800+ uses of the word in the film.

I understand the need for sources, but the one that is cited now is not one of the accepted two. If you'd prefer there to be false information in the list, that's fine, but I'll continue to try and change it, since it's the truth.

To be honest, since the film uses background graphics that are composed of hundreds of different variations of the f-word, so the actual total is almost uncountable, it actually far exceeds 800. This accounts for our 800plus count in our graphic.

As Kevin Smith states in the film "It's dubious honor, but hey, I'll take it."

If you'd like to confirm this is me, you can contact me at steveand@earthlink.net or 310-213-9291.

Steve Anderson producer/director "Fuck"