User talk:B

Because of privacy concerns, I no longer maintain separate archive pages. One of the worst policy decisions Wikipedia has made is to allow user and user talk edits to be indexed by search engines. This creates a space that is largely unmonitored for libel and nonsense, but is nonetheless the top g-hit for any relevant search term. For previous comments on my talk page, see 2007 Dec 30, 2008 Jan 21, 2008 Feb 26, 2008 Apr 20, May 10, or the old archives.

Why was 25:40 page deleted?

You deleted a page that I created yesterday, citing it as "blatant advertisement." Yet that was not my purpose. I am not trying to recruit people or convince anyone to donate to this particular organization. However, children suffering from AIDS in South Africa and around the world is an important topic, and I believe people should be more aware of it and what needs to be done. 25:40 is an excellent organization, and I simply want people to be aware. Can you give me suggestions on how to add this organization to Wikipedia as a more neutral page, rather than deleting all of the work that I put into that page - it took time and is very frustrating to see it all gone now! I never asked for anything on the page - simply stated their mission as a non-profit, and explained about the area. How is that an advertisement?? Would it be better to headline the article as information about the area, and mention the work that 25:40 has done there? Please help. I'm not really sure how to communicate on Wiki, this is all very new to me, but you can email me at awsoccerstar11@hotmail.com Thank you.

Not sure what you mean

I'm choosing to stay out of the drama with Cla68 (talk · contribs). But you threw my name about here, and I'm not sure what you meant? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I went and looked for it and this is what I was referring to. You are saying that everyone you disagree with — Christians, homeopaths, and racists — are all tied together. This attitude is really causing a problem because it leads to an us vs them mentality. In reality, you and I probably agree 110% on homeopathy and racism. When I am sick, I don't want distilled plant roots, bug excrement, or magic foot pads — I want a doctor. And I don't care if that doctor is Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, black, white, male, female, young, or old as long as he or she knows what he or she is doing with regards to medicine. You said it before when we were dealing with the "save the south" user that regardless of our disagreements, when you are right, I will vigorously defend you and that's true. It's probably also true of most non-SPA Wikipedians - you will agree on some things and disagree on others - and the "going after" anyone that in some way offends the ID project just isn't very helpful. That's all I was trying to say. --B (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm in full agreement with you on bug excrement. I do distinguish between Creationists and Christians, I want that clear to anyone reading any diff by me. I just don't think that religion of any sort should run any government. I'm even annoyed by the state of Israel, of which I am technically a citizen (though I have never taken up the Law of Return), for their making religion a part of the government. What I am saying is that anti-science denialism of any sort are all the same. From a personal standpoint, I do not lump everyone who disagrees with me together, only if they disagree with me on all points. For example, although I don't agree with you across the board, you have my full and absolute respect because of your anti-racism stand, which appears more absolute than mine. So, I don't lump everyone together. if I need to learn one lesson from my conversations with you is that I should be more patient in determining if there is common ground. We seem to have it on magic potions and racism! So if I shouldn't lump everyone together, please don't lump me with anti-Christians or anti-religion of any sort. I have strong religious beliefs, I just prefer that they be kept to myself. I promise to reduce the "lumping" of POV's together. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but a huge part of the problem in the area is the assumption of Young Earth Creationists that either all Christians believe as they do, or to define "real" Christians as only fellow Young Earth Creationists. OrangeMarlin was not referring to Christians or even Creationists now that I see the quote; he was referring to YEC. And YEC are definitely a tiny WP:FRINGE group, who frequently campaign against science. Just a point of clarification.--Filll (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is opposed to science. Again, that's putting words into someone's mouth. Even "true" YECers (the earth is 6K years old) are not opposed to science. I've heard (don't know how true this is) that the notion that the earth was created 6000 years ago actually came from people mocking the Bible and saying "do the math and you get a 6000-year-old earth - ha ha ha". In reality, there are no dates in the first part of Genesis, so for all we know/care, Adam and Eve could have been chilling out in the garden of Eden for billions of years before trying to make apple pie. The point of Genesis is that at some point, God made the family through whom He would eventually bring forth the nation of Israel, and, in Christian beliefs, His Son into the world for our salvation - the exact timeline is immaterial and is outside the scope of what Moses was trying to get across. --B (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, many YEC and other extremists are against science, or want to redefine science to suit themselves etc, or use "science" or what they define as science as a tool for proselytizing or even generating hatred for others of other beliefs. You might want to investigate Dating Creation and Ussher chronology so you can be a bit more educated about this subject.--Filll (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping Dating Creation was going to be a how-to guide ;) --B (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

When I saw it, I thought the same thing. I disappointed to find out otherwise. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

Did I do something wrong here? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no, not about you. I'm just annoyed in general at this point. I think there are a lot of abuses that need to be cleaned up. --B (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This project is getting filled with drama. It's wearing me out. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Name of the dog

Hey, B - I don't care too much one way or the other if the name of the dog is in the caption in the Ingrid Newkirk article, but the concensus on the talk page doesn't seem as harsh as your comment and actually seems to favor including the dog's name. If you haven't seen that discussion, take a look at it. I think that Wiki has far more latitude than a typical encylcopedia and I don't think that including the dog's in any way makes the info within any less valuable.Bob98133 (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it and I've commented on it. This really is silly. When you're writing about something else, be that in a newspaper article, an encyclopedia, an essay for school, or anything else, you don't make yourself a part of the story. (An exception would be if we were columnists or writing a blog, which, hopefully, we are not.) I see from your user page that you are a writer, so I'm assuming you would agree with this. Only two people in the "discussion" wanted to have the caption in there - the photographer himself, who is about to be blocked (see ANI thread and second ANI thread) and SlimVirgin, for whom I have nothing but respect, but she is obviously too close and wrong here. --B (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor Copy Edit

I'm reluctant to edit someone else's statement to arbcom in case I've misunderstood completely. In your statement re cla68 et al, you might want to change "is not pretty decent" to "is now pretty decent". Or not. I guess most people will read it as a typo anyway. 87.254.71.190 (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternate Account

Baegisthesock is my alternate account. Thanks for checking. Baegis (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Photo Request

Hate to bother you with something like this, but I'm working on the 2006 Gator Bowl article, and was wondering if you might have taken any photos at the game that you could share. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't at that game. I don't usually go to the bowl games. --B (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Bummer. I'll have to dig some up, then. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR block by FM

Feel free to add the WP:WHEELed block FM gave me for 3RR on SV's report to your evidence. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Baous

Judging from the vandalism earlier on User:Buura35 and User talk:Buura35, the issue appears to be this user Baous. Does this look like a disruption-only account to you? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No idea. I don't know a thing about modern music and most real track names look like vandalism to me. ;) I looked and other than the incivility I deleted, there's nothing flagrant that I saw ... but again, I don't necessarily know what I'm looking at. --B (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)