User talk:CIS/Archive 1

Bill O'Reilly

Hello Darwiner,

I see no-one has welcomed you to Wikipedia yet, so welcome! I hope you like it here and stick around.

This is just a courtesy note to let you know that I reverted your change to make Bill O'Reilly go straight to the commentator rather than to a disambiguation page. We discussed this at length a couple of months ago, and the conclusion was that both the commentator and the cricketer are equally notable, in different parts of the world. Americans have only heard of the commentator, whereas Indians and Australians have only heard of the cricketer. So we decided to leave it as a disambiguation page pointing to both.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Year formats

I noticed you changed the formats for the years in Human. You may not realize this, but there has been considerable controversy in the past over whether to use BC/AD or BCE/CE, with impassioned arguments on both sides, leading at least once to a Request for arbitration. The current compromise treats the matter similar to American/British English spelling differences: use whichever is already established in the article or the article's author originally used. Hope this makes sense, and feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. It's probably not too useful to list arguments in favor or BC/AD here, since even were I to be convinced, I am just another editor with no special power to declare one way better than the other; the issue isn't actually all that important to me. I'm more interested in preventing edit wars and such. BC/BCE may or may not have been discussed specifically for the Human article—it's more of a Wikipedia-wide issue—so I am not sure if there is any mention in the article's discussion archives. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras has the current guidelines, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2 is a recent case regarding a user who was changing years from one format to the other. It's been discussed in other areas as well, although I can't recall offhand; asking one of the users active in that RFAr might be helpful. Let me know if you have any more questions. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider this your second warning not to change era formats in articles once they're already established. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hanukkah bush

Please don't edit closed AfD discussions. If you feel the discussion should be re-opened, please do so, but what you are editing is a history of the resolved discussion. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hanukkah bush

If you believe Hanukkah bush should be deleted per the deletion policy, then renominate it properly. Do not try to forge an AfD notice or link to an AfD discussion that has already been closed.

Be aware that such a nomination will probably fail, for three reasons:

First, it was nominated for deletion (for a second time) in October, 2005 and there was consensus to keep; in fact, the vote was unanimous for keep with the exception of the nominator.

Second, there is very widespread feeling among Wikipedians that articles which survived an AfD should not be renominated again for at least six months;

Third, the issue here is not whether you approve of "Hanukkah bushes" or whether some Christians and some Jews find them offensive. We have many articles in Wikipedia on topics that are offensive to some readers. The issue is whether there are such things as Hanukkah bushes, and whether the article is accurate in what it says about them.

If you have a good, verifiable source that says that Hanukkah bushes are offensive—such as a newspaper article or a book—you could include a quotation from that source and a reference to it in the article.

The article already makes it clear that many rabbis disapprove. I've asked another person who objected to the article for evidence that Christians object. I doubt that many do, because the Hanukkah bush is usually private and does not form part of the current controversy on the celebration of Christmas. It is not an attempt by Jews to displace the Christmas tree or anything like that. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Don't use profanity in edit summaries.

Also, please don't restart edit wars over BC/AD BCE/ACE issues. -- Curps 20:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third warning

This is your third warning not to change era notation in articles. Even if you disagree with Wikipedia's policies and practices, edit warring is not the answer. You will have to reopen the matter for discussion, and most people are reasonably satisfied with the current compromise. Also, please remain civil in your dealings with other editors and in your edit summaries. This summary is highly inappropriate. You cannot simply force your change through—that's not how we do things here. The next time you make a change in this manner you will be temporarily blocked from editing. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jesus, Secular Era

SE is not an accepted method of calendar reckoning; please stop changing dates on articles. Also, regarding some of your edit summaries, please review WP:CIV. Thanks...KHM03 18:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secular era

This could be a reasonable way of citing dates, but it is not currently in use. I think it is your own invention. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has a policy of no original research. You can't use Wikipedia to publish or promote your own new ideas.

If you publish and promote this idea somewhere else, and they appear in a published book or print media or receive widespread use on the Internet, you can contribute an article about this idea. But it has to be generally accepted outside Wikipedia first.

If I'm wrong, and this dating system is already being used, you need to cite sources that show this. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dpbsmith, please, is it really that difficult for you to realize that the Secular Era page is just humor? I made it, knowing it would be deleted, just to showcase the ridiculousness of the Common era nonsense that is attempting to "replace" anno Domini (thought it's the exact same thing, only renamed to exclude religion). Darwiner111 19:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I treat all encyclopedia contributions seriously. I would rather take the chance of treating humor seriously than take the chance of offending someone by treating a serious contribution as humor.

Wikipedia is a serious project and humorous essays shouldn't go in the main namespace (the encyclopedia) as articles. The right place for it would be on your user page, or as a subpage of your user page. You can create a subpage just by typing a slash in the article name, like User:Darwiner111/Secular Era. For an example of (an attempt at) humor in a user subpage, see User:Dpbsmith/rank.

With regard to doing things tongue-in-cheek to prove a point, see WP:POINT.

As for BCE/CE versus BC/AD, just leave it alone. Please. We've had more than enough trouble with that already. BCE/CE are frequently used in academic papers, but some of the editors in Wikipedia who are changing one to the other or vice versa are just grinding an axe and making trouble.

A long time ago Wikipedia settled the issue of whether to use American or British usage ("color" versus "colour") by saying that usage should be consistent with any one article but did not need to be consistent within Wikipedia, and that new edits should follow the usage already established in the article. That's the consensus on how to handle BCE/CE versus BC/AD. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for requesting deletion of Secular Era. It makes things easier. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing, due to your repeated change of the era notation on articles despite more than three warnings to stop doing so. While blocked, you may still edit your talk page. You are welcome to resume editing when the block expires if you will refrain from making these sorts of changes. Also, I am curious; why did you stop using the User:PatrickA account? It wasn't ever blocked... — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell is PatrickA Darwiner111 17:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

PatrickA is a user who started editing Wikipedia a month or so ago; he tried changing BCE/CE to BC/AD in articles and also argued for a similar change in Wikipedia's standards. When it was suggested to you that you create subpages for your ideas instead of creating separate articles, you initially created it as User:PatrickA/Secular Era, a subpage of the PatrickA account, instead of under your own account; you later blanked it and created it as User:Darwiner111/Secular Era. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge Seeker, I'm not sure which of Darwiner's edits triggered the block, but I'm afraid I screwed up in the editing of the Aristotle article. I don't really want to disentangle the whole edit history, but Darwiner's edits both related to making this article internally consistent—using BC throughout. There was a little comedy of errors and my own edit was incorrect. I apologize to Darwiner111 (and to User:Paul August).

Darwiner111, try to be more diplomatic in your edit comments and elsewhere. When I read the edit comment "all other readings showcase 'BC', this is an organized encyclopedia," here's what I thought you meant: "This encyclopedia uses BC everywhere else, so this article should, too."

I found the word "showcase" puzzling because a showcase is a glass cabinet where people display awards or medals or valuable items. When you said all other readings "showcased" BC I thought you meant "BC is right and should be proudly on display everywhere in this encyclopedia."

It would have been clearer your edit comment had said something like "Changing BCE to BC in first paragraph so it matches the rest of the article." Dpbsmith (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, Dpbsmith. No, the edits to Aristotle were not a factor. As you mention, the page does have a mix of styles, and it is not immediately obvious to me which the original is, which is also why I did not revert Darwiner's changes on that page (although I did on others). — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

You've been temporarily blocked again for continuing to change era notation in articles. In addition, despite your professed ignorance above, your posts to Talk:History of the world#Era Proposal, in which User:PatrickA posts a message, then you post below it referring to "my above reccomended changes", along with both accounts' edits to History of the world, strongly suggests that you are operating both accounts, and I am temporarily blocking both accounts simultaneously. Note that your course of action was largely correct at History of the world; you properly brought it up at the talk page, although you should wait for more than a couple hours for feedback. Nevertheless, the article was originally written using BC and so the change was appropriate. Your edit to Buddhist art, however, was not. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User pages

Clearly you've been editing pages and changing the way dates are expressed. I stumbled across your version of the 'Britney Spears' article, with dates rendered as Pompeii Era. Should this really be left in the same categories as the original article? I found it in 'Soubrettes', and found your edits confusing. As they are part of your user area, rather than in the main articles space, they are, effectively, opinion, and I would ask that they are not made accessible through links in the main space. Regards, fatbarry2000 19:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Re:this edit summary —I probably shouldn't call you on this, but please be careful not to call a "good faithed" edit vandalism; as funny (or weird) as it seems, it alarms people on RC patrol, and unfairly labels an editor's work as unscrupulous. Please read the vandalism article for further info. Thanks. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celine

Hi Darwiner111,

I'm hoping to avoid an unnecessary edit war. Louis-Ferdinand Destouche wrote under the pseudonym "Céline", I'm not aware of any of his works under his legal name, Louis-Ferdinand Destouche. Celine Dion, however, releases her music under the name "Céline Dion", not "Celine". Given these facts, "Céline" should more appropriately redirect to the writer rather than the singer. Alternately it could be a disambiguation page, however I see little justification in a redirect to Celine Dion.

Also, I think it is disingenuous of you to refer to my Celine Dion edit as "vandalism" [1], as it certainly was not.

Regards, Bk0 (Talk) 22:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Christianity article

Hi, please don't start edit waring over AD CE. I note you've already been blocked for that. And please don't give false revert vandalism edit summaries. Thanks. AnnH ^(talk) 22:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at discussion, BC was originally present in article and most other users agree with me. BC stays. Darwiner111 22:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Do not continue to pointlessly change date styles. If you persist you may be blocked for disruption. Jonathunder 04:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you continued to pointlessly change date styles on the December 25 article, and in excess of the 3rr policy, you have been blocked for 24 hours. When this expires, please heed the advice of the editors who commented here and find a better way to contribute. Jonathunder 06:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hmm. It's funny how bastards like you can become Administrators when all you do is harrass the users. What did I do wrong I didn't violate the 3RR rule because you reverted the god damn article. Darwiner111 06:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Third block

You have been blocked for a violation of the three-revert rule on December 25. Given that it was an edit war over era notation changes, and that you have been repeatedly blocked for this and have been edit warring over this matter on several articles, I am extending your block. You can expect blocks of increasing length if you continue to behave in this fashion.

I might have been overly simplistic or unclear in my earlier statements to you. That an article was originally written in one style does not mean it is locked that way forever. The proper style for any article is whatever the editors decide it is. That means, among other things, that if most editors prefer an article to use BC/AD even though it was originally written using BCE/CE, it should use the former notation, and vice versa. I strongly urge you to focus on other ways to contribute to Wikipedia instead of reverting and trying to impose a particular style of era notation on articles. And please don't refer to edits you disagree with as vandalism. Changing BC to BCE is not vandalism, any more than is changing BCE to BC, whether you approve of the change or not. Finally, please treat other editors with civility and respect. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For block evasion as User:24.222.79.90, and especially for continuing to revert at December 25, I have further extended your block. Please cease changing the era notation in articles. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior tonight has been atrocious. Violating 3RR was bad enough, but the rude/vulgar edit summaries, userpage vandalism, use of multiple IP addresses to evade your block, and use of your sockpuppet accounts User:PatrickA and User:Jordain to evade your block and show a false sense of support for your position are appalling. I'm increasing your block length further. Please take this period to cool off and to get away from Wikipedia. You've severely damaged any credibility you may have had here, and I suspect that when you return, you will find any era changes you make being reverted by users simply because of your history of vandalism and block evasion, regardless of the merits of the change. Please take some time to rethink your approach to this encyclopedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: PatrickA, Darwiner111

Thanks for your message, Darwiner111. I am glad you are willing to discuss this. I am replying on User talk:Darwiner111 as well, as that seems to have been your primary account (you hadn't used User:Jordain in quite a while before this event). You may reply there; blocked users may still edit their talk page for precisely this reason. I would be happy to copy your replies here. Or, if you prefer to use a different account as your primary, that is fine as well. Just let me know.

I am pleased that you would like to attempt resolution. If by "our" issues you mean issues between you and me, then there are none to resolve. I have no anger or conflict with you, and once your block expires, you will be free to continue editing. I will of course continue to enforce Wikipedia rules and guidelines to the best of my ability, and were you to resume the sort of behavior you exhibited a few days ago, I would have to block you again. I am optimistic that that won't be necessary, though. If by "our" issues you mean issues with the way Wikipedia works or with the Wikipedia community, then yes, there are several issues to work out, but I hope I can help you with them. If you wish to attempt resolution only once it is your choice; I hope it succeeds. I agree that you do make beneficial edits, and that is the reason that your accounts were not all blocked indefinitely. After your behavior on the 27th, many administrators would have probably blocked your account indefinitely, and I considered doing so. But given your positive contributions, I opted for a shorter block.

Your block evasion was not appropriate and it certainly was not necessary for you to do so. Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. And I'd strongly advise not editing Wikipedia when you're angry. If Wikipedia is causing you that much stress, take a break for an hour or a day. Otherwise, you'll probably end up doing something you regret. If you feel that everyone except you is biased, I hope you'll at least entertain the possibility that you might have been the one acting inappropriately. Also, I try to prevent my biases from affecting my editing or my work on Wikipedia. I'd appreciate if you could explain my bias and how it manifested, so I can avoid it in the future.

I did check the history, and yes, I was aware that the date was originally 1 BC. Reverting the change once was fine, and I wasn't aware that anyone accused you of vandalism for it. Could you point out where this occurred? I do see you accusing several other editors of vandalism for making edits you disagree with, and that really is not appropriate behavior. Of course, I accused you of vandalising ([2] [3]) User:Jonathunder's user page, but that was pretty blatant. Yes, things got out of hand. You lost the "battle" because no one was agreeing with you. I'd guess it was because of the people disagreed with the change, the rapidity of your edits, your edit summaries, and the lack of explanation on the talk page. It had nothing to do you with your lack of administrator status, other than that your behavior makes it unlikely you would be selected as administrator at this time and that an administrator would not behave in this fashion. One of the users who reverted you is an administrator and was briefly blocked by a different administrator who mistakenly thought he had violated the three-revert rule. You were obviously aware of this since you removed a comment of his from that section of his talk page, and you were obviously aware of the three-revert rule since you mentioned it in an edit summary. I don't see what gave you the idea that your lack of administrator status would have made any difference. Non-administrators who see behavior that merits a block can report it in several places; in particular, three-revert violations may be reported at WP:AN/3RR. You were blocked because you violated the three-revert rule. No one else did. Violating the three-revert rule is grounds for a block. You proceeded to revert at least four more times, resulting in an extension of the block. It's quite straightforward.

I bear some responsibility for confusing you regarding era notation. Please see my comments to you in the section above. I'd say the overall policy regarding era notation is that it's whatever the article's editors decide it should be. If an article was originally written with BCE, and someone changes it to BC and is not opposed, then that may be considered acceptance. Someone can come of course and change it back to BCE, but may be reverted if the article's editors prefer the prior version. That an article was originally written using BCE does suggest that that's what should be used, but it does not automatically lock the article to using BCE forever. I certainly don't think you should go from article to article systematically changing the notation, even if you dig through the history and find that the article was originally written in a different form. (If you are unclear on this matter I would be happy to further explain it.) In fact, I'd go as far as to suggest that you refrain from any further notation changes. It clearly causes you a great deal of stress and clouds your judgment. Focus on other ways to improve Wikipedia.

I don't wish to unblock you yet, as I feel that a short break from Wikipedia will help you cool off and gain a fresh perspective, but I am will consider shortening your block. I don't wish to change December 25 back to BC—as I mentioned before, I realize that was the original usage, but a number of editors appear to prefer the other version and I really have no opinion either way. I reverted you solely since you were evading a block; prior to that I don't believe I edited the article.

I'm glad you contacted me, and I look forward to further positive contributions from you. Please let me know how I can assist in your smooth return to Wikipedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PatrickA, sometimes I'm not sure if you are reading the messages people leave for you, which may be part of the reason you're having difficulty here. In the first place, you should be explaining yourself before you get blocked, not afterwards. After you are blocked, you should not be using IP addresses at all, but should be leaving messages on your own talk page, which you may edit while being blocked. It's on my watchlist and I'll reply there. I can copy the messages to my talk page as well for you if you like. Is PatrickA the account you wish to use from now on then?

Do you understand what the three-revert rule is? Could you explain to me what you understand it to be? I could then help clear up where you're confused, since you clearly violated 3RR and Jonathunder did not. You requested I look at the evidence, so here it is. The version that you reverted to was [4]. Your first reversion was at 03:38. Your second reversion was at 05:38. Your third reversion was at 05:52. Your fourth reversion was at 05:56—with that, you had made more than three reverts in a 24-hour period and were blocked. That's where your 3RR violation occurred. Of course, you didn't stop there. Your fifth reversion was at 06:15, and you accused those disagreeing with you of vandalism. Your sixth reversion was at 06:31. Your seventh reversion was at 06:42. Your eighth reversion was at 06:51. At that point the article was semi-protected due to your continued block evasion and egregious reversion. and the revert war was over. Jonathunder only made three edits to the article that day and so obviously could not have made greater than three reverts; it was therefore impossible for him to violate the three-revert rule. The version to which he reverted is somewhere in the history. His first edit reverting the format was at 16:15. His second reversion was at 04:23. His third reversion was at 05:55. At that point he ceased editing the page; he never made a fourth reversion and so did not violate 3RR. If I am mistaken, I would appreciate you showing me the violation, preferably listing the evidence in the style used at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.

If you feel that no one agrees with you, it may be because of the way you present yourself. I'd say the manner in which you behaved on December 25 and other articles would be enough to cause other editors to dislike you, and as I said before, your reputation has been seriously damaged by your recent actions. I would not be surprised if you find some of your edits being reverted simply because of your history and because they were made by you. Certainly I would be highly suspicious of any era changes you make and I would encourage you to stay away from them from now on. You mention several times that people thought you were vandalizing—could you point out why you think so? I cannot see a single instance where someone accused you of vandalism, aside from your vandalism of Jonathunder's user page. If you are imagining that people are insulting you, it might explain why you get so angry.

Regarding the edit to Evolution, I'd be happy to explain it. No, it's not a random article; I have it on my watchlist and I am marginally active on it; mainly reverting vandalism or participating in discussion on the talk page, as you can see if you peruse my contributions or the article's history. I removed a religious element because it is an article about science. It makes no statement as to the existence of God or lack thereof, and therefore, religious topcis are not relevant. I am not an atheist, but I recognize that science has been far more successful than religion at explaining the mechanics of how the world works. I have not made up my mind regarding BC/AD and BCE/CE, and if I were to write an article which included events more than two thousand years ago, I do not know which system I would select. I've seen good arguments made for both sides. My opinion regarding BCE on December 25 is quite simple: you had reverted eight (!) times in a few hours, four of which were made using IP addresses to evade a block. Edits by blocked users may be reverted on sight, certainly repeated violations of 3RR should be. If you go looking for conflict, you won't find it with me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me some time to respond to your messages. There are activities outside Wikipedia in which I participate, and even though it is important to me, I have other tasks on Wikipedia aside from your rehabilitation. You need not worry; I will not ignore your questions, although it may take me some time to respond to them fully. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I'm disappointed that as soon as your block expired you returned to edit warring over era notation and other matters. If you find you're the only editor reverting to your changes, that's a good indication that consensus is not on your side. In addition, while the three-revert rule is an absolute limit, it doesn't entitle you to three reverts a day. A more civil and community-oriented approach is to try to limit yourself to one revert a day. If others agree with the change, they will make it. You're doing a good job explaining your proposal; don't jeapordize your credibility by further edit warring. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to cause edit wars as I did before, I'm just going to edit in favor of Christianity (Being as NPOV as possible) and not revert back if someone reverts my edits (unless I have reason; i.e. the consensus was to use AD/BC or the original artciel was AD/BC and someone changed it to BCE/CE without discussing, per 25 December). Darwiner111 06:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your reply. You're off to a good start. If an article has been BCE/CE for a long time, even if the article was originally BC/AD, you should interpret that as support for the other version. Discussion is only one means of arriving at consensus. Especially if you change it and find it quickly changed back, you should let someone else be the next person to revert it or you should bring it up on the discussion page. Incidentally, if you would like one of your other accounts unblocked, please let me know. As long as they are not being used to evade blocks or create a false sense of support, there is no rule against having multiple accounts (which is why I did not initially block User:PatrickA). — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: A Vote?

Thank you for your very gracious invitation! I'm pleased to see your message; in my opinion, this is the sort of approach that will allow you to succeed at Wikipedia. It's an interesting proposal, but for now I think I'll just observe. Despite what we've been through, I don't really have a strong opinion one way or another (I once had to mass-revert and block a user who was systematically changing BC/AD to BCE/CE despite being warned). Good luck with your proposal! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Hi, I left a note about speedy deletion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis the Pie Queen. Hopefully the article you nominated will be zapped soon!

Are you from Darwin, by the way? --kingboyk 08:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope lol, don't even know where "Darwin" is. Thanks for the AFD addition. Damn vandals lol. Darwiner111 08:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Darwin is a small city in Australia's northern territory. It's closer to Jakarta than Canberra. Geography lesson finished, over and out! :) --kingboyk 20:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insults and personal attacks

You wrote:

That's ridiculous, Guettarda. Can't you see that there is obviously an anti-Christian sentiment in all of this? If you say that Wikipedia can only "describe" AD/BC, then wouldn't you also find it logical to have Wikipedia rename all the days of the week from Monday to Firstday; Tuesday to Secondday; Wednesday to Thirdday, etc?? Saying "Wednesday" is asserting the POV of believing that this day belongs to the God Woden (i.e. Woden's Day). I've never had a reasonable excuse by anti-Christians like yourself as to why the days of the week are left alone in all of this. They are just as POV (which isn't very POV anyway) as AD/BC but nobody cares. Why? Because some people find it amusing to single out Christianity when it comes to these pathetic euphemism labelings. Leave AD/BC alone. Darwiner111 20:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to read the policy against personal attacks. What right do you have to say "anti-Christians like yourself"? Who do you feel you are to insult me like that? What right do you have to libel me like that? Guettarda 09:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know Guettarda has a point, Matthew 7:1 and all :/. Homestarmy 19:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need some help on Biblical Jesus

Rob is making a vote to merge it with Jesus, and once he can do that, it really looks to me like he won't let the Biblical perspective be protrayed as anything more than worthless :/. Can you come vote and rally some people to help out? Homestarmy 19:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah never mind, many people showed up and voted no to the merge. Homestarmy 19:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware?

Do you know about the project Wikipedia:Eras? I encourage you to read a bit of the backlog at its talk page, and participate if you wish. I'm just letting you know because I see that you've been involved in date format edits. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's why I didn't recognize you. Cheers; see you around. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brosnan returning as Bond

What source do you have that says that Pierce Brosnan could return as Bond? The Wookieepedian 23:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None, really. Other than the fact that most popular polls suggest that over 70% of the public disagree with Daniel Craig's casting as Bond, and therefore EON may re-instate Brosnan or possible another actor as Bond after the 2006 film. Although this is a weak source it is reason enough to simply alter "last appearance as Bond" to "latest appearance as bond". You should see this website. Darwiner111 23:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It's not a source at all. Pierce is done. What you're doing is speculating. WP:NOT—"Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." Besides, EON won't do this. They signed Craig to a minimum of 3 films with an optional 4th (same as Brosnan got). It would be hard to break that deal. Also, the "CraigNotBond" website is horribly slanted. Fans and critics have actually been very approving of Craig - please read the 2 big websites CBn and MI6.co.uk. As the Casino Royale article states a number of big name actors associated with Bond have also come out in support of Craig - Brosnan, Connery, and Moore among them. Should the possibility of Brosnan ever returning happen, Wikipedia can be updated to take that into account, but for now it's a definite "final appearance." There are no planned future appearances. Like it or not. K1Bond007 00:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Darwiner111/Beethoven

If placing copies of articles in your user space, please remove the categories and other similar features, so that your article copy does not appear in mainspace categories. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Darwiner, I just wanted to let you know that cross-namespace redirects are generally not supposed to be used. In particular, redirects should almost never go from the main namespace to the user namespace (except for temporary redirects when moving an inappropriate article to a user's page), so I deleted Darwiner111 and D111. Also, you should not create user pages for nonexistent users, so I also deleted User:CIS and User:CIS/AA. Also, I asked you before: if you create articles in your own userspace, please do not include main article categories. I removed them from User:CrazyInSane/Hilton. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Chronology

Dear Crazy:

I can appreciate that you want to include a wider range of the dates for Jesus' birth, but I wish you would have discussed it on the talk page first. There has been a ... vigorous discussion there and your changes may well set it off again. In addition, you changed a footnote that represented hours of my time documenting the views of scholars on the matter -- a note that is not even done being worked on -- and destroyed reference information for a later footnote.

Please come to the talk page and participate in the discussion there. No one has yet reverted your change, but it may well be. --CTSWyneken 23:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Church on Wikipedia

I was wondering about your comments at User:Jimbo_Wales..you said Jimbo is not Christian? Do you then know if he participates in any religion? Thanks.CrazyInSane 22:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply at user talk:Jimbo Wales. -- user:zanimum

Bond image

I just wanted to let you know that I overwrote your image for Image:CraigAsBond.jpg. I didn't want to "litter" Wikipedia with yet another image and I thought the promotional shot they released yesterday was a better picture (not as blurry). It is a better shot, IMHO, but if you don't think so or disagree with this, just revert it and I'll either upload the image again to a new name or something, although I don't think we need two of these... K1Bond007 17:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Year formats, yet again

I reverted your era changes in Berossus. Further disruption will result in administration being allerted. Justin Eiler 18:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User page

Hi, CIS. Thanks for asking my opinion. First I should be clear that I am not a board member of the Wikimedia Foundation, nor do I hold any especially prominent post. I’m just a Wikipedia editor whom my fellow editors have judged to be trusted with some additional tools. Your user page looks really good—you’ve obvoiusly put a lot of work into it. I think it gives a good picture of what you’re like. I find the switch between first person and third person to be a bit jarring. You start out using the third person; however, when you start discussing your interests, the first two “CrazyInSane’s comments” use the first person point of view; then you return to third person. It is appropriate to write the introductory material in the third person, but I think it makes more sense for you to write your comments from your own point of view. Also, as you must realize, people may be put off by your heavy religious activism—there are many, including me, who are turned off by attempts to push one’s political or religious views in Wikipedia. By coming on so strong, both on your user page and in other areas or Wikipedia, you risk alienating those who otherwise might agree with you. In my case, I had never given much thought to the Christian nature of AD/BC, and prior to your arrival I don’t think I’d ever used CE/BCE—but now that you’ve shown how religious AD/BC is, I probably won’t be using it anymore. (Understand I come from a religious, but not Christian, background.) Finally, I’d use an s in the possessive “User:CIS’s interests”. Hope this helps. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Image use policy

Just FYI, I was cruising around the image in question here and noticed you had it on your user page. I just want to note that per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines editors can't use fairuse images on their user pages. They can only be displayed on articles related to the actual subject matter. I removed the ones I noticed on your user page. Just letting you know. This is a pretty strict rule. Sorry. K1Bond007 04:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh. Apparently you missed this. Please read Wikipedia:Image use policy. Theres the proof. Please don't revert it again. K1Bond007 21:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Fair use. Non-free images are not permitted anywhere other than articles. --Carnildo 22:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eras

Hi, FYI I noticed and undid your era notation change from BCE/CE to BC/AD. When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Era for more. I assume you were unaware of this. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing

It's quite amazing the discovery that I made. A very very amazing co-incidence. When you made this comment, which outlined that you disagreed with my comments, the time of this edit was 21:19, 14 March 2006. I then went to the Selected anniversary section for 15 March, whereas I noticed that you made an edit to change 44 BC to 44 BCE. I, of course, immediately suspected that you did this in reaction to our comments, because as you can see here, you made the change from BC to BCE at exactly 21:24, 14 March 2005. I suspected that this was a mere 5 MINUTES after you made the first edit at the Talk:Main Page but it was actually an edit made almost exactly one year prior, off by a mere FIVE MINUTES. Now, you may say that the second edit actually occured at 01:24, 15 March 2005, and you would be correct. Here's where the second part of the huge co-incidence comes in. What are the chances that I have my Wikipedia-clock set to -04:00 from UST, meaning that I saw the second edit as actually 4 hours earlier (i.e. 21:24), rather than the correct 01:24 UST. As for the first (21:19 UST) edit, I looked at the timestamp that was given from your username stamp that is given with the four tildas (~~~~) at the end of your comment. This was in UST format, but my Wikipedia clock saw the second comment using AST, placing what I thought at the time as a 5 minute difference in your two edits, but they were actually 1 year and 4 hours apart. CrazyInSane 05:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you thought I was a rogue admin, eh ?!? :-)

Last year, before the AD/CE thing became a big topic of discussion in Wikipedia, I was also asked about my change from 44 BC to 44 BCE on the Sel.Anniv. template for March 15th. You may want to see User talk:PFHLai/Archive 1#BC vs. BCE and then User talk:Wereon#BC vs BCE.

Relax, CrazyInSane. It's supposed to be fun 'working' in Wikipedia. Don't get yourself too worked up. Happy editing. -- PFHLai 06:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date styles

Please just stop this drive to change date styles. The Calandar era article is about how different cultures use different dating eras and there is no need to impose one style on all of the sections in it. You've changed the date styles in other articles, too, and there just isn't any reason to. This is a diverse world, my friend. Jonathunder 05:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before Christ merge

Hi. Why did you remove the merge template from both Anno Domini and Before Christ? The discussion was still ongoing, with the consensus strongly pointing to merging the content back. I don't see that you have commented on the merge issue, so I don't know what your stance is, but if you meant that the issue has been resolved by consensus, you should at least start the merging back before removing the templates. I'll be reverting the changes. dewet|™ 06:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I assumed the consensus was toward a non-merger. CrazyInSane 06:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Billy Zane.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Billy Zane.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Arniep 20:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Dougherty

Hi there. I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Ned Dougherty, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the article (also see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Ned Dougherty. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Powers 23:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Please help me

I'm happy to help, but it looks like Ilmari Karonen already deleted it. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. By the way, you may wish to remove the remove the wikibreak notices from your user page, since it looks a little silly to keep editing with the notices posted. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion warning

The following images you've uploaded do not have sufficient source information to verify their copyright status:

Unless a verifiable source is provided within seven days, these images may be deleted. Also, the image Paris Hilton FUTURE.jpg appears to be a copyright violation, and may be deleted unless its copyright status is clarified. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated JP4.jpg, Petunes.jpg, Teesion.jpg and Jeee.jpg for deletion. All are currently unused. I find the {{PD-self}} claim on the first one hard to believe, and the others are fairly unencyclopedic and may compromise their subjects' privacy. You may comment on the nominations at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 March 23. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Please stop altering the sockpuppet notice on the user page of your blocked sockpuppet, User:PatrickA. I have temporarily protected the page. Removing information about the creator of the sockpuppet is not appropriate, and continued action may merit a block. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only altered it once and then reverted once with explanation, hardly merit for protecting such an inactive page. I haven't shown any intent on re-reverting the page, thus your actions are uncalled for. Appropriate action would be to unprotect the page CrazyInSane 07:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the first time you've altered it. A glance at the page history shows multiple questionable edits by you, including removing the sockpuppet template at least four times prior to today. It is customary to protect the user pages of indefinitely blocked users if the user (either through a different account or anonymously) repeatedly alters the notices. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catapult/Images

I see you found my image list. I ran a script weeks ago to generate a list of existing images that were uploaded by users that were blocked (indefinitely or otherwise) at the time of the scan. The rationale is that such images are often copyvios/untagged/unencyclopedic/etc. I've removed the item you edited as it's been deleted anyway. Chick Bowen was the one checking most of them, I just generated the list with my bot account. Chick seems to be on a wiki-break at the moment, so if you'd like to help in image tagging, that might be a good starting point. Regards. — Mar. 25, '06 [09:46] <freakofnur_xture |talk>

Era notation

Please do not start edit-warring over era notations yet again. The Arbitration Committee has already sanctioned editors for doing this. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]