User talk:Merecat

Welcome to the Wikipedia!

Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Merecat! Thanks for weighing in over on the War on Terrorism article discussion. Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

• Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial and Manual of Style.
• When you have time, you can peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia, and Assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
• Always keep the notion of NPOV in mind, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
• If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
• Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, Wikiquette, and you can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, Merecat, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 06:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich

Please read Jason Gastrich's RfC before you get involved with him. I'm glad that there's still someone left whose supply of good faith hasn't been exhausted and is ready to defend him, but the problem with that is that he's become basically indefensible. If you can find the Christian parable or argument that everyone else has missed that will convert him into a productive member of Wikipedia, I'll take my hat off to you. Then eat it.

I hope that by messaging you I won't give you the impression that I'm part of Jason's imaginary atheist cabal trying to isolate him; Gastrich has isolated himself. Just letting you know what you might be getting into. You told him that he could remain faithful to his 'mission'; well, Jason's mission is to evangelise (on the RfC he explictly states that he is trying to save people from Hell), so as long he does remain faithful he will be unable to contribute in accordance with NPOV. --Malthusian (talk) 09:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

16th Street Baptist Church

• "Infiltrate" is technically correct. (American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd definition: "(of a liquid) permeate (something) by filtration."). "Seepage", while not common in technical literature on building conservation, is a more concise synonym for that definition, so thanks for the improvement. --Dystopos 14:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for supporting me in my successful RFA. Please drop a note on my talk page, should you need assistance with anything, or have questions about any of my actions. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message... Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Your Question

You asked me a couple questions on my RfA regarding the issue of keeping faith-based articles out of Wikipedia. In case you haven't realized, I have responded to your questions (or so I hope I have) in the RfA's comments section. Feel free to delete this message from your talk page after reading it if you feel it unnecessarily advertises my RfA. joturner 05:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe you have answered my question at all. However, if you want an opportunity to prove yourself to me, answer me this: Yes or No, are you interested to hear my concerns about what I see as over-injecting of the Islamic view on certain prophet pages? I'd like to see what you think about my concerns there. We could discuss John the Baptist. Are you willing to try that? Merecat 05:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am interested in hearing your concerns about the over-emphasis of Islamic views (or views of other religions) in prophet pages. On John the Baptist, your concern is very clear. Given that John's significance in Islam and the Qur'an are outweighed significantly by his significance in Christianity (I hope I'm thinking of the right John), the unnecessary Islamic quotations either need to be removed altogether or, if the topic becomes significant enough, moved to its own separate page regarding John in Islam. About the template though, I feel that should stay because as of right now there is no other page that discusses John as an Islamic prophet. On that same token though, if a template regarding prophets in Christianity or Judaism were created, those too would be belong in the article (presuming, of course, separate articles regarding John in the respective religions weren't created). And about the Qur'anic links, I don't find them especially useful in the article, but those hoping to trim down the Prophets of Islam wanted to keep the links for each prophet somewhere. joturner 05:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have five major concerns there 1) there is a section which is specific to Islam but not a section specific to anything else. 2) The footer which lists all the prophets of Islam is overkill and is imbalancing the page by "laying claim to it" for Islam. 3) The "preponderance of the text" is weighed too heavily towards Islam. On multi-religion pages, word count parity should be observed. 4) the links at the bottom are not in any order suchs as alphabetical. I see that the Islam link comes 1st. Why is that? 5) The outline for this historical biography ought to open with a chronology which states when John 1st appeared in literature and also lists each next appearance. Chronologies and alphabetical are NPOV, other methods are not. Merecat 05:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to number one, I'd like to point out there is a section entitled John the Baptist in the New Testament, which essentially means John the Baptist in Christianity. There is also a section for Eastern Orthodox, Mandaean, Gnostic, and Mormom beliefs. In response to number two, right now there is no better place to put it. You can, if you'd like, balance out the template with one for Chrisitianity or Judaism. On number three, I agree that the Islamic view is covered disproportionately high for John's relative insignificance in Islam. For number four, the reason the Islamic prophets link comes first is because the table, which includes the reference to the Islamic prophet category, comes before the category links. That's usually how it's done, but it could be re-arranged so that all the categories show in alphabetical order. About number five, this does not relate to the presentation of Islam in the article. However, I disagree that a timeline would make the article any more NPOV. The "facts" about his life vary between religious traditions. And it seems self-evident to me that John first appeared in literature in the holy books of Christianity. If that is incorrect, it probably should be more plainly stated in the article. But a timeline seems a bit unnecessary. joturner 05:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You answers are welcome, but to me, betray a rigidity of thought. Most specifically this; "there is no better place to put it" - it's only a POV mindset which concludes so quickly as you did. No better place? It's my view that it ought not even be there to begin with. However, to conclude without more dialog that "there is no better place", shows that your opinions are pre-formed and your mind is closed. I am unable to support you at this time. Thank you for your reply. Merecat 06:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that you have linked this discussion from my RfA, I believe it only makes sense to defend what I meant by "there is no better place." The template does not exist in Jesus, Moses, or Abraham because there are articles for Isa, Musa, and Ibrahim, which focus on the prophets in Islam. There, however, is no alternative for John the Baptist and so there is no better place for the template as there is with the others. joturner 20:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Again I will point out that comments such as "...no alternative" can only spring from a mind that is closed to alternatives. As I stated above, one alternative is to not include it at all. The fact that Joturner now restates that his mind is closed to alternatives, tells me that he does not welcome my views. This is not the type of mindset that I welcome in an admin. In fact, it alarms me that he does not see he is overtly asserting that being closed-minded is his method of dialog. Merecat 21:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting my words. There is "no alternative" for John the Baptist in Islam as there are with some of the other prophets (Ibrahim vs. Abraham, for instance). That is a fact. If you find one (or create one), I would be glad to move the template and the mass of information on John in Islam to that location. joturner 08:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I dislike weighing in, but since this was linked from the RfA, I have to say I agree with joturner. I haven't seen anything in this dialog that betrays an obvious POV, as a matter of fact. I happen to agree with him. Johnleemk | Talk 20:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are welcome. Thanks for sharing your views. Merecat 21:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Merecat, with all do respect, your comments here are some of the most agonizing I have had to read in recent memory on Wikipedia. I would have avoided this discussion like the plague had you not linked it from joturner's RfA. I think what joturner what means ty "no alternative" is no subarticle for "John the Baptist in Islam". I do not think this means that he is being "closed-minded", his comments were clear as day for any editor assuming good faith. I would encourage you (and others) not to view articles about figures with significance to multiple religions as battle-grounds, as if it were somehow "zero sum" to include one religious view. Your comments about him "over-injecting" the Islamic view only make sense with this flawed assumption. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I invite your feedback on all issues that concern you about me, or anything else. Merecat 00:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ron Karenga

Merecat, I would like to do some consensus editing with you at Ron Karenga. regards, FloNight ^talk 16:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll check it out, but I have trepidations. My research about Kwanzaa is that when it was initiated, it was intended by Ron Karenga to be a "keep us apart from whitey" celebration. Now, though it does appear that Karenga himself has mellowed somewhat over the years, I am still personally leery of any so-called "holiday" that has as its flag colors black (not for whites), red (spilling of blood) and green (radical environmentalism). Suffice it to say, I am not persuaded that Karenga has forsaken his racist views and I am not convinced that he has sworn off violence as a means to an end. Those who want to hold Karenga up as a "father" of something, must watch that he's not called the father of only nice-sounding things, for if that's done, a hagiography results and this would violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Merecat 19:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand your thoughts. I have an idea. If some of your opinions get too hot for his talk page, email me and we can discuss them. Some of these issues bring out strong emotions that are best discussed off talk, I think. I want you to participate in discussions on his talk page, just not say very strongly worded derogatory things about him. I can see now that you were more attacking him than SV. Think about it and feel free to email me if it will help. If you reject this idea that is fine too. : ) FloNight ^talk 19:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that a factual recitation of Karenga's personal history rises to the level of an attack. If you want to dialog with me about Karenga, as a predicate condition, I ask that you state here via quotes of my comments, which comments of mine are (according to you - see above) "attacks" of Karenga. Also, I'd prefer to do all dialog on the record. I am uncomfortable with the idea of side-discussions. If my thinking is wrong here, I want all editors to have a chance to see it and so inform me. But, on the other hand, where my thinking is right, I'd like that to be known also. That said, please let me know what "attacks" you think I have made against Karenga. Merecat 19:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If your preference is to keep all discussions on Wikipedia that is fine with me. In the past, I have found it helpful to do portions of consensus editing discussions by email. I don't think it needs to be done that way on this article. If you were interested, I would explain the benefits. I also discuss my strong personal feeling about controversial issues with my family, friends, and a few WP editors (by email). That helps me stay focused on the immediate issues. Some of your comments were too strong to go in the article, I labeled them attacks in my above post. If you want to characterize them another way, that is fine. I'm trying to get you to help edit this article, I'm not trying to run you off. FloNight ^talk 20:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your gentle reply. Hopefully, you will understand this point: I feel that the term "attack" is laden with detrimental meaning and if used, is tantamount to an accusation. If you really feel I have "attacked" Karenga, please qoute me here and dissect my quote with an explanation, showing me my error. I am interested to understand where, in your view, I transgressed. Thanks. Merecat 20:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Merecat, we'll let it rest for now. regards, FloNight ^talk 04:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for your comment. I'll apply it. Thanks for reading my user-page. I feel I am important. :D Take care --Aminz 10:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

See this link [1] to review the talk page comments I made which are being referred to above. Merecat 11:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"End Notes" style of links...

Hi Merecat. Please try and keep discussions, such as "End Notes" style of links reduces readability, in one place. Copying your comment to multiple places is redundant and fragments the discussion. Thanks. ~MDD4696 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Not being sure where best to post it, I thought it sensible to try a couple of places. Merecat 02:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

When you are unsure, you can always ask someone on their talk page or post something at the Village pump. Or, you can just post it somewhere logical and people will refer you to the right place if it's not the right one. Just try to avoid spamming. ~MDD4696 02:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that the respective article talk pages are "spam" and the other three locations were admin specific. I am mindful of what you say, but I felt I was ok. Even so, thanks for the feedback. Merecat 02:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No problems :). ~MDD4696 02:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

DaGizza's RfA

Thanks!

Hi Merecat, thank you for supporting me in my RfA which passed with a tally of (93/1/2). If you need any help or wish discuss something with me, you are always welcome to talk to me. Gizza^{Chat ©} 12:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA Results and Thanks

Merecat, thank you for your constructive opposition in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. In the meantime, I will do my best to address your concerns in the hope that when the opportunity for adminship arises once again, you will reconsider your position. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path. --- joturner 05:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Rationale to impeach George W. Bush

If you add the POV template to the article, it is really incumbent upon you to specify the problems with the article on the talk page. Your discussions on the talk page really don't touch on problems of the article; it would be good if you can set out exactly what needs to be fixed. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Answered on talk page there. Merecat 03:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

---

(comment by anon ip deleted)

Template:Jack Abramoff

I am responding to your edit summaries on multiple edits to articles containing this template, stating such things as "This template is biased POV crap".

I created that template to bring together articles relating to the Abramoff controversy, specifically for use on articles where the article's subject is primarily notable for their relation to the controversy (e.g. Konstantinos Boulis), or where the article's subject has more than a passing involvement with the controversy (e.g. Tom DeLay). I feel that it is used properly in many of the articles where you deleted it.

I would appreciate it if you would quell the nastiness in your edit summaries; my strong suggestion to you is that if you dispute content, at the very least you should copy it to the talk page for discussion. There may be one or two examples where content can be improved for NPOV, but based on your approach I think that others are well justified in reverting your edits as non-helpful.

Regards,

KWH 15:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So if I called it biased POV caviar, you'd be ok with that? Merecat 21:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be considered civil if you would discuss matters on the talk page by actually detailing an objection, rather than continuing to revert and remove, with accusatory edit summaries. KWH 04:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question, to wit: If I called it biased POV caviar, you'd be ok with that? Merecat 08:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't very witty. And I can only repeat the same thing again: It would be considered civil if you would discuss matters on the talk page by actually detailing an objection, rather than continuing to revert and remove, with accusatory edit summaries. State a reason why you think that the template has a POV (on the template's talk page). KWH 12:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Merecat 16:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Katherine Harris

I believe you are being disruptive with respect to your insistent tagging of the Harris article as having a disputed neutrality and your recent edits. It is obvious that encyclopedic/objective treatment must be subject to the facts; it is further obvious that the mass resignation of Harris' campaign team is, in terms of factual importance to her political fortunes, far greater than anodyne reassurances from partisan sources that everything is fine. To insist, as you have, that somehow equal time be given to refute factual circumstances simply misses the point. Please indicate on the Harris talk page how your recent actions can be interpreted in good faith because as it stands it appears ineluctably as if you are POV pushing, in violation of WP:NPOV and, with your insistent edits, WP:POINT. Otherwise this should go to mediation. Eusebeus 00:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment and with your conclusions. However, your erudite way with English is refreshing. Thanks for your comments. Merecat 08:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

WADR, I think insisting on "alleged" is like saying that if I propose a tax decrease for every person in your state who uses or edits Wikipedia, then it "allegedly" helps you. Look, the article I cited is headlined, "Harris backed bill aiding Riscorp", and in the article it says that she "sponsor[ed] a bill in 1996 to block Riscorp competitors from getting a greater share of Florida workers' compensation market." [2] --Sholom 00:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Then we would do best to simply quote the article. Merecat 06:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for characterizing your actions as "harassment". I actually do try to stay away from adjectives and adverbs. But it was a bit frustrating to read your complaint about me not quoting articles when I was indeed quoting articles. Nevertheless, I hope we're closer to being on the same page now -- I left a 2-paragraph response to you on Talk:Katherine Harris. -- Sholom 14:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 12:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

Now, I'm getting chewed out for a few missing edit summaries so I figured a friendly little reminder to use them might be a friendly little thing to do :) -- Tawker 02:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you link a few diffs here so I can know what you are talking about? Merecat 13:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Plame affair unexplained move

Why the heck did you move Plame affair to the obscure title Wilson Plame Scandal? The title you chose is POV and it does not abide by Wikipedia guidelines. What is worse, it cannot be changed back! You did not even mention this on talk, and you have not participated in editing that page or discussing anything on that talk page in the recent past. Your name change has caused a lot of confusion and now has made it impossible to return to the NPOV name that had been agreed upon over a year ago on that page. Please change it back, and explain yourself on the talk page.--csloat 18:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I also found the move premature and disrespectful of the consensus reached previously. Merecat - I'm asking that you please participate on talk, and in good faith restore the article. We should all initiate a discussion about possible titles before anyone unilaterally moves it again. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know

You attempted to vote oppose twice on my RfA, I took the liberty of striking out your duplicate vote, no worries mistakes happen pretty easily there. If this RfA doesn't pass I look forward to your vote in 3 or 6 months -- Tawker 07:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! Merecat 18:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Latest and greatest

Hi Merecat. Just wanted to say I appreciate your consideration and good faith responses to my posts. I'm hopeful that whatever the real or perceived political differences between our respective POV, we can at least agree on what a precious and wondrous work America is. I'm grateful for your good faith and willingness to engage civilly in our ongoing discussions. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Or, as ham radio fans would say, TNX. Merecat 00:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Response

Yes, I did edit your comment to change "Democrat party" to "Democratic party". Apologies if you prefer to be wrong; or if you were subtly trying to indicate that you're a freeper. Generally though, typo corrections are appreciated. To allay any possible concerns, I assure you that I would also correct any reference to the "Republic party".

I am convinced that the Wilson plan was hatched at the highest level of the Democratic party, probably with help from anti-Bush staffers at CIA

I'm sure you can understand from that why I thought you might be stoned. It's ok man, no need to get defensive; we all like to relax now and then. Maybe you were just drunk; no worries, it's all good.

Ok, you got me on Scotty. He didn't actually write that here. But, he obviously agrees with the sentiments. Nevertheless, I do apologize to Scott McClellan, and indeed to the Bush administration as a whole, and to America for impersonating the White House spokesman on a Wikipedia talk page. Though in my defense, I did immediately below note that it was a joke. I sort of figured that, given the Ann Coulter SCOTUS death threat precedent, that a joke acknowledgement would be good enough for Wikipedia. Apparently not.

You are right, I do owe you a heartfelt apology. I am really, truly, deeply, stupdendously, overwhelmingly, tremendously, prodigously, and poignantly sorry. I was wrong, and will now flagellate myself with a scourge of thorns. Derex 04:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of a "scourge of thorns". A scourge would typically be a cat-o-nine-tails type of whip, with metal or bone pieces tied into the leather strips. Personally, I don't think that thorns would hold up. Perhaps you were mixing metaphors by mistake? Anyway, thanks for your apology. As for this "I am convinced that the Wilson plan was hatched at the highest level of the Democratic party, probably with help from anti-Bush staffers at CIA", are you mocking me about that? If so, please read this and tell me what you think. Also, please don't say things like this "Maybe you were just drunk". I think it's un-called for and does not add to rapport among editors. Thanks. Merecat 05:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Your tastes may run to leather, but I'm a vegan. Kate's Texas kink is something to consider though.

I think the "American Thinker" is anything but. If that's what passes for critical thinking on the right, it's not difficult to understand why things are such a mess. The writer needs to take a remedial course in basic cognitive skills. You asked; that's my opinion of that paranoiac.

As to the "drunk" thing, you're right; I was making fun of you. Fantasies such as the Democrats & the CIA together conspiring to make Bush publicly leak the identity of a covert CIA WMD operative (working on Iran no less), and then lie about it, are an extreme manifestation of cognitive dissonance. But you are also correct that forthrightly expressing such opinions doesn't add to rapport, and I'll leave off that now.

I do have some sympathy for your condition, as I myself leaned to the right as a youngling (as most privileged Southerners do). Left off that though when I resolved to always argue both sides of any issue to myself. You might try it. Derex 15:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

I've blocked you for disruptive editing and reversions that break the spirit of WP:3RR, if not the precise letter of it. Please work out your differences on Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush rather than blindly revert. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 15:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you! Hello Merecat. Thank you for your support in my RfA! It passed with a final tally of 91/3/5. I am quite humbled and pleased by the community's show of confidence in me. If you need help or just want to talk, let me know. Cheers! -- Fang Aili 說嗎?

Michael Scheuer page

Please taka a look at recent edits on this page. One editor is reverting quotes from Scheuer's book in a seemingly pure act of censorship, just because he does not want readers to know Scheuer has written these words. Please take a look and see if you can mediate the situation. RonCram 13:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I will look at the material in question ASAP. In the meantime, watch out for your reverts. I recently ran into a SNAFU with another editor and unwittingly transgressed 3rr - so be careful.Merecat 19:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have replied in several sections at: Talk:Michael Scheuer. Merecat 21:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Bush Crimes Commission

You are invited to vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Crimes Commission (2nd nomination) Morton devonshire 01:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Merecat 04:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for supporting me in my RfA. I really didn't think people appreciate my work here that much, but it's nice to see you do: my Request was closed with 66 supports and 4 opposes. I'll do my best not to turn your confidence down. If in any point in the future you get the feeling I'm doing something wrong, do not hesitate to drop me a line. --Dijxtra 11:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Workshop: Press blackout

Hi Merecat, I saw Press blackout on your Workshop page, so I thought I'd draw your attention to my comments on the article's Discussion page. T. J. Day 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

See my reply there. Merecat 20:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

User conduct RFC

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Merecat

I noticed that you have not been notified of the RFC on your talk page. Obviously, you already know, but it's policy/standard procedure to notify the user on their talk page. So I'm making sure everything's done right. Kevin Baas^talk 23:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

(delete anon ip comment)

Response...

Yes, I already commented there. I think you may need to tone down your POV a little bit. I didn't comment to blindly support you though. I think both parties were generally in the wrong there. See you around. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I value your input. Merecat 01:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest you try and initiate a nice cup of tea and a sit down as a sign of goodwill towards Nescio? Try and meet a political opposite halfway. Oh well, just a suggestion. See ya. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure: I made a comment about you here. I tried to explain myself, and I didn't mean any harm, and hope you understand that. But if you think I erred too badly, kindly say so and I will take my appropriate punishment. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Merecat 02:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Always best to make sure, and keep things transparent. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat

Thanks for invite, but I am not familiar with the dispute. For the record, Bush has about as much chance of being impeached as I do of becoming the President.--MONGO 07:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Merecat 16:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders

Respectfully, Sanders is an independent, i.e., he has no party affiliation. There are no Greens, Reform, Liberterian, or Communist Party members in Congress. Please don't accuse me of making false statements if it's not absolutely clear that I have done so. - Jersyko·talk 16:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Please read Bernie Sanders whic states "*Bernie Sanders "[i]s one of very few self-described democratic socialists elected to federal office in the United States in recent times."

Also, where is the definition citation which you draw on that defines major as having as a prerequisite, election of a party member to Congress? If you have no citation, we are having a semantic disagreement. However, my version of the facts is baked up by Bernie's self-description, yours is not. Also, absent a citation proving Major = what you say, my opposition to it on POV grounds is valid. Larger refers to size and is NPOV. Major infers rank or validity. Please think this through. Also, saorry for my poor choice of words. I believe you are mistaken and should have said "mistaken", rather than "false". Your distress about that echos my distress about "major".

Merecat 16:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Major vs. Larger

• All political parties have equal standing under the law. There is no such thing as a "minor" party. Consequently, there is no such thing as a "major" party. The term larger or largest must be used instead as its clear with that word the comment is about size, not validity. UTC)

• Bernie Sanders "[i]s one of very few self-described democratic socialists elected to federal office in the United States in recent times."

• The Conservative Party "has been significant in influencing the descisions of the New York Republican Party."

Merecat 16:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sanders has no official party affiliation - he is an independent and caucuses with the Democrats. Pundits and scholars are essentially in unanimous agreement that the United States has two major parties, thus the extremely commonly used term "two-party system." - Jersyko·talk 16:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Also see Green Party (United States) which says "has been active as a third party since the 1980s.". Ralph Nader ran as a Green in 2000 and tipped the Florida election, his impct there was indeed "Major". Also, "in 2002, John Eder's election to the Maine State House of Representatives marked the first Green Party state legislator in the United States elected in a regular election." Merecat 16:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Also see Libertarian Party (United States) which states "The Libertarian Party is a United States political party created in 1971. It is the largest third party in the United States, with over 200,000 registered voters and over 600 people in office, including mayors, county executives, county council members, school boards and other local offices."

I contend that by any reasonable defintion, the Libertarians and Greens are major and the use of major in the intro as currently used, is a false statement. Merecat 17:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat 17:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

____
thanks and here's a new wedge-tailed eagle pic resize

Hey Merecat, I've been following your comments on the dem party talk page. You kick ass. I made a new resize of the Wedge-tailed Eagle photo you have on your article. If you don't like it, it won't hurt my feelings if you don't use it. I sharpened it a bit and added some contrast and stuff to it. I put it on my site where you can download it if you like. http://earthhopenetwork.net/Wedge-tailed_Eagle-mdm.jpg
http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Thewolfstar 23:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

____

Merecat, I worked on your meerkat photo, too. It is here:
http://earthhopenetwork.net/Meerkat_Calgary_zoo.jpg
Thewolfstar 00:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments. I'll look into the photos ASAP. Merecat 00:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Many thanks for your support of my recent RFA, which passed narrowly. I will try to be worthy of your support, especially since we appear to disagree on some ideological issues. Such as the serial comma, which I seriously, really, and wholeheartedly employ. Regards, Kaisershatner 21:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

SOS

Dear Merecat,
The Democrat Party edit war has escalated itself into huge proportions.

Jersyko and I got into a debate. He used the Wiki xy debate procedure, I guess you'd call it, and I x'd and y'd him back. I believe he lost badly. He and the others flipped out and archived the entire talk page with all the conversations on it. There are nasty comments still there left by John K. and Jersyko. At least, of this writing they're still there.
I put my own feelings into this also and made a mistake. They didn't delete the page and there is a link to it. They say they will archive every time I make a comment on the talk page.

Can you please help me with this, Merecat? Thanks a lot. thewolfstar 06:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Since I added this last appeal I have left them a lot of harsh comments, too. I cant' take this bullcrap, anymore.

See my comments at Talk:Democratic Party (United States). And please try to speak nicely. "Bullcrap" is not the best way to speak. Merecat 14:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that at various times I've been called a "tyrant" multiples times, compared to George W. Bush, Stalin, and Hitler, and been told that I'm "harassing" thewolfstar by thewolfstar (but strangely by absolutely no one else). Additionally, read my comment on the talk page of the Democratic Party article and decide for yourself whether I'm attacking thewolfstar or actually trying to get John K to calm down a bit. Also, thewolfstar somehow thinks there was an argument that he/she won which was "covered up" by archiving the talk page instead of a lot of disjointed argument that wasn't going anywhere. Thank you for stepping in to help smooth things over, I appreciate your comment on the Democratic Party talk page and agree with it. My reason for posting here is merely to point out that perhaps thewolfstar isn't giving you the whole story. - Jersyko·talk 17:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am aware that Wolfstar has several times resorted to histronics. My aim is to give him another avenue of communication, so as to provide an outlet for what's frustrating him and at the same time, to help distill his concerns to a managable list. Merecat 18:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

to merecat from thewolfstar

Dear Merecat,

You can say that I have resorted to histrionics. This is probably so. I would call it, more accurately, hysterics.

My anger and frustration is the direct result of a harrassment campaign done by the editors of the Dem Party (US) article. This can be seen both on the (archived) talk page of the article in question, and comments on the logs. It can be seen in conversations with some of them on my user talk page.

I have attempted to discuss my concerns on the talk page and my comments have been dismissed as nonsense, misinterpreted, no matter how carefully they have been written, ignored, and responded to with double talk. They have suddenly decided to archive the talk page [3] with this comment: ==Archived==

I've archived again. Any more incomprehensible rants by wolfstar will be immediately archived. john k 21:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

While sympathetic to what you're saying, I disagree that thewolfstar's rants should be immediately archived. Let's not discourage discussion, but rather encourage everyone to post more coherently and less acerbicly. - Jersyko·talk 21:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I won't immediately archive. But I am convinced that thewolfstar will not make any substantive additions to this conversation. It'd be best to ignore him, and prompt archiving is usually the best way to achieve this. john k 01:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you have told them that this inappropriate, however,

I believe they are hiding this page because they don't want others to read it.

I have attempted to edit the article page and have been prevented from doing so, most often, with justifications and actions that are false and intended to confuse a newcomer on Wikipedia. I believe they fall under the Wikipedia definition of 'harassment'.

I believe the editors of the article have harrassed me (by Wiki standards) throughout our debate, if one can call it that, by lying, justifying their actions with claims not concurrent with those of Wikipedia, and being uncivil. I have reacted to these incivilities with more incivilities at times. At other times I have remained civil inspite of some real crudeness aimed at me.

I am following your advise and writing item #1 to insert in the talk page right now. Thank you for the advise. It is good advise.

And, Merecat, I apologize for using the word 'bullcrap'. I didn't know you considered this to be an offensive word.

Thanks for stepping into this edit war at my request. thewolfstar 19:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

== Dear Merecat, == item #1 is on the article talk page. Can you read it. Thanks thewolfstar 20:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

to merecat and all the others

Thank you again, Merecat, for coming to my assistance, being fair to both sides, and for your comments.

I would prefer to be called by my actual user name:
Thewolfstar, not Wolfstar. I have my reasons for this.

Thewolfstar is an actual existing thing in American Indian history.
Also, it's just my user name. If I wanted it to be Wolfstar I would have made it that to begin with.

I am not a 'HE'. Please stop referring to me as such. This is the third time I have stated this.

Would any of you like it if I referred to you as 'SHE', if you were actually a 'he'?

"Thewolfstar" it shall be. I thank her for communicating this to me. Merecat 23:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

from the wolfstar again

I just read your most recent comments on the dem party talk page. Merecat, you are awesome. You said something about looking for help with your projects, on your workshop page. If I can do research for you, or assist you in any way, please let me know. thewolfstar 03:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. Merecat 04:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

They weren't just kind words. I'm serious about assisting with any article. thewolfstar 04:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Hey Merecat. I'm not trying to bash or insult anyone now and that is the truth. Don't you think it's kind of odd that there haven't been many comments today on the talk page other than yours and mine? I have learned to grow distrustful of many people in my short time on Wikipedia, which really is kind of sad. I don't think that's the way Wikipedia was intended to be and I don't want it to be that way for me or for anybody. Although I have reacted harshly and meanly myself at times, It's not the way I like to be. Some people, like yourself, have been kind and helpful, though. I know a lot of bullying has been aimed at you, too.

I'm not going to let any group of bullies get me down or stop me, either. Thanks for all your help and input thus far. Maggie thewolfstar 05:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Maggie, take a look at my edits and see if you can follow along. It takes much practice to avoid arguments. I'm dealing with one now. Bite your tongue and focus on finding links to well regarded sources which back up the edits you are making. As for there being less edits from others right now, that happens some time. Don't focus on that. Instead, make a few edits in an article and back up what you are doing on talk with citation links. Then wait a few days and make a few more. You'll get less upset editors that way. Fast change can be alarming. Better to move at a modest pace. Also, don't make harsh comments to other editors. Merecat 07:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat. I am not just some hysterical nut. I'm a pretty well educated woman that can see a lot of stuff. More than most and that's a fact.

I had just made other edits before putting that npov box up. That's maybe why you think the article isn't that bad. It is that bad. And just watch. Tomorrow or soon the orignal confabulated stuff will be up their again. This is only the 2 connected sections of the article that I have edited tonight. There are masses of lies and misleading statements. Facts are thrown in and left out with care, believe me. There is a section about Nader that is disgusting and it shouldn't be in there. I took that out, too. It will all be back soon. This article is that bad. Compare it to the Republican Party article which is just a straightforward, unbiased article. See the difference. Read this one more carefully. It is that bad. And I'm not tolerating it.

This article is a lying propagandizing ad for the Democrat Party. It is in an encyclopedia and may be there forever for people to read. Think about it, Merecat. Maggie thewolfstar 09:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Without commenting on your assessment of the article, I just want to caution you to move slowly. Wikipedia has a rule about consensus and though I'm guessing can support most of your edits there, others have indicated they will not. Based on that, it's very important that you move cautiously and get quality citations for each point you want to make. I support your drive for accuracy. However, I am concerned that others may take issue with your approach and use their complaints to do WP:RFA or WP:RFC against you. Please be certain to leave at least a full day or two for dialog on any strongly contested points. Merecat 15:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat, thanks for what you just said. It is very sensible and helpful, as well. From the history of this whole thing and how it almost got civilized and then got turned back into a war by Griot and 8bitJake, I doubt true consensus or peace will ever rieign in this discussion. I am really trying to remain civil and calm. I know you have other things to do. When you get a chance can you check the talk page out? The lame edit war things and Jersyko's parting remarks about me are unbelievable.

I do get what you are warning me about, though and really do appreciate it. Yours in calm against all Puritanistic-hen-pecking-witch-hunt groups Maggie thewolfstar 20:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

---
That last comment is rescinded and apologies to everyone concerned humbly made thewolfstar 23:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Democratic-Republican Party

Thanks for taking my side in this Democratic-Republican Party debate. Some want to change it to "Republican Party," which to me is ridiculous. I used to edit college textbooks. I find it very strange that somebody wants to reverse fifty years of common usage -- and with such flimsy evidence. Anyhow, I'm writing to ask if you would weigh in on the Discussion page at the Democratic-Republican Party article. I think these guys have a political agenda. They want to associate the modern-day Repubs with Jefferson's party, when there is no historical affiliation. Can you help? Griot 21:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on things. Merecat 21:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

Please be aware of the Three-revert rule, in particular with regard to your edits at Talk:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities. Stifle (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Please help there. I am dealing with an agressive vandal. Merecat 00:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

(delete vandal comment)

Merecat 3RR report

I do appreciate your attention, whatever your assessment. Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Please tell Ryan to stop trying to taunt me with what are arguably vandal edits. Merecat 00:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Both of you, go have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Merecat 10:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing content from your talk page

Please be aware that removing content from your talk page without properly archiving it, and in particular, accusing people of vandalism with little evidence, as you did here, can be considered uncivil. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Gee, that's funny. Griot just removed my comment from his talk page and it was a friendly comment. I don't know who you are, but judging from the way you talk here YOU are uncivilized. Not too many double standards here, huh, folks? I suggest learning how to talk to people. A little kindness might be in order. Also, what comments Merecat leaves on his page are his business. thewolfstar 05:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather that content not appear on my talk page and I'm of the view it does not merit archiving. Merecat 10:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation

Your edits on Katherine Harris violate the 3RR. You reverted the edits by Shalom reverting your additions then re-reverted my exclusion of the same material. Please do not repeat this. You have been blocked for revert warring in the past and you are on report for RFP. --Gorgonzilla 20:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that I have violated 3RR on Katherine Harris today. Please supply diffs. Merecat 20:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Killian

I'd like you to reconsider your insertion of the word "partial". I get your point completely, however "In contrast..." is still true as it relates to the contrast between a computer and typewriter. The problem is that the word "partial" doesn't really make sense unless the reader also has access to your edit summary to get your train of thought. However, it's not appropriate to explicity tag Hailey with a qualifier ( "However, the argument that the docs were produced on a typewriter does not rule out the possibility that they were typed in 2004" ) unless we allow other statements to also get tagged with qualifiers that reduce or negate their impact. (Plus the qualifiers would be the editors' comments rather than describing the work of others) The documents authenticity is analyzed at the other article, this is just a quick summary and pointer anyway. If you think "in contrast" is too broad how about leaving the dependent clause off altogether and starting the sentence simply, "Dr. David Hailey..." It's minor, I know, but I just don't think your change helps much. Thatcher131 03:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no "contrast". I'll consider something else other than "partial", but it's not contrast. Contrast implies rebuttal and the controversy relates to the authenticity. Even if produced on a typewriter, it does not prove that it wasn't done recently and hence, still a forgery. Therefore, there's no "contrast" Merecat 05:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat, you're an idiot. Seriously, I mean it. Please assume my good faith on that, because I couldn't be more sincere. Normally, I'd assume you intentionally misspelled your name as an affectation, but based on the overwhelming evidence of your breathtaking idiocy that seems unlikely. Have me blocked, whatever, because it's something you need to know. Derex 19:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not an idiot. I am a jerk perhaps sometimes, but not an idiot. Merecat 22:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You are correct to question "In Contrast". I don't agree that partial is a solution and have made what I think is a fair description. And no, you are not an idiot for questioning such an obvious error. But POV warriors often think people who disagree with them are idiots. --Tbeatty 02:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Merecat 04:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

SOS

Merecat, This is really important. I need to talk to you without the goons listening in. I do not believe in maneuvers. This is important to both, our survival here and the survival of Wikipedia. Please go here: [4] scroll down on left column, and find the contact page. Please send me an email and I'll email you back or we can use messenger or paltalk or whatever.

This is serious. I can't say this here, not in this police state.
in peace and solidarity Maggiethewolfstar 04:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to think about that. I am a real believer in on the record communications. Let me decide until tommorrow. Merecat 04:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I respect whatever you decide because it is and should be your decision. I'll just say that I am NOT one to do underhanded tactical maneuvering. This is an urgent matter. I want to ask your advice about it. It is huge. It concerns something that the goon squad would try to ban me for because it involves blowing their dirty cover. I don't think they will win. I'm pretty sure they will lose, because I have faith in Wikipedia as a whole, and I have faith in Jimbo Wales. From what I can ascertain, he is an okay guy. In the mean time they can make it a lot harder on me if they want to for a while, at least. Yours in the mission to save Wikipedia Maggiethewolfstar 05:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The wiki will sink or swim regardless of what we do. Give me a hint here what's up. Merecat 00:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I meant Wikipedia not the Wiki community. I am about to go to Jimbo with some hard evidence of the cabal and of what goes on around here. I don't have proof of a cabal. I have damning evidence of the existence of one and I am collecting proof of what the pedantic goons do. People are watching both of us like a hawk, along with some others. You and I are way up on their shit list. I personally have insulted and stood up to at least 3 admins, (in response to their provocation.) I just got threatened by one of them. Now they can see what I wrote and they'll probably find some lame excuse for blocking me. I probably will be permanently gone soon anyway 'cause I don't take their authoritarian bull crap. I will talk to Jimbo one way or another. If they block me can you help me out? I'll do the same for you. There's a lot of very cool people around. I found that out. Your friend and thanks for all your help. Maggiethewolfstar 02:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Truth has a self-perpetuating power. That's why it's called truth - it carries forward, true to the mark. I do not at all feel as though I am a target. Rather, I feel that there are a few editors who, not having become comfortable with my presence yet, are over-reacting towards me. I'd recommend that you ignore any hostility focused on you and instead focus on finding quality citations which substantiate the truth of edits you wish to make. I've taken the liberty of editing your above post, so as to prevent communication problems for you. Remember: Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead! Merecat 03:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If you edited it out than why is it there? You may not feel as though you are a target, but you are believe me. So am I. What communications problems? Are you telling me they'll block or ban me.

I have been dealing with controlling idiots my whole life. They sort of don't scare me and big time really they do. Did you notice that we are not only in a fascist dictatorship, but a strangely socialist one as well? Did you notice that there is one world government and that Big Brother is watching us all real closely? Have you noticed strange things going on..everything from the crumbling of the twin towers to arrests of kindergarteners to helicopters landing in school yards to the United Nations to the federal reserve to F.D.R.'s selling of our money to foreign banks to the financing of Hitler and the Russian revolution by Prescott Bush to so many of our presidents and other powerful people belong to the secret society Skull and Bones? to information gathering and the ploy to use RFIDs to the guns being pointed at us the U.S. citizen in the name of fighting terrorism and on and on and on and on?

Honestly, Merecat, patience is a virtue but fact is fact. I am going to get as much info and fact as I can. I am going to Jimbo with it. I am afraid for the future of Wikipedia with the iron clad hold the Democrats and liberals have on their articles. It shouldn't take weeks and months to add neutrlaity to ploitical articles. I don't have the time or the patience for this.

I know about truth. I call it God. I rely on God every day and am not afraid to admit it to anyone.

If you want to continue in this unbelievable never-ending up hill battle to defend fact based articles on Wikipedia, okay. I don't. thewolfstar 04:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The Bible teaches us to: "Speak the truth in love". God is in control. The world is only going to end when He says so. In the meantime, we muddle along. If you feel like quitting, take a few days off. You'll feel better afterwards. Merecat 07:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Merecat, thanks for stepping in, I guess. I never said I felt like quitting. Why did you say that? Do you think they are about to make me obsolete now? Remember the words of Patrick Henry...

Give me liberty or give me death

That's what I say. Jesus was a fighter. I believe a gift and a mission He gave me was to upset people. (Only people who need to be upset, of course) Look at my conversations with Tijuana Brass or what I wrote on Slim Virgin's talk page. They're normal kind conversations. I'm not a mean person, Merecat. I believe you know that. Maggiethewolfstar 09:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen, you're ok with me. Merecat 20:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

an sos alert for an rfc victim

Here's another guy that can use support
here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:Mr_j_galt#Outside_view_of_Ombudsperson

12 steps employed by the tri-party cabal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KDRGibby#12_Easy_Steps_for_Ruling_Wikipedia -- you will recognize the tactics. Morton devonshire 17:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush

Please do not alter or remove the comments of those with whom you are involved in a content dispute, particularly Prometheuspan. It is only escalating the conflict. I recognize that his use of poor formatting has been somewhat disruptive of the talk page, but I urge you to recognize that there are more neutral parties looking at the talk page who will be capable of cleaning things up in a way that hopefully will not antagonize anyone. Thanks for your consideration, Christopher Parham (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I made a sub page for him and asked him to use it. I'm not sure what to think about his actions there. Merecat 20:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

apparently, the way to deal with this is to seek an arbitration. My bad, I thought mediation was the next step.

In any case, you have been duly informed. Prometheuspan 00:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

ps, heres the way to the page. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

Comment from a bystander at WP:RFAr

Hi Merecat. I think you may have misinterpreted something.... when Prometheuspan said "I wish i knew how to shrink the things down, but i am a total newbie with extreme dyslexia so you will have to forgive me," it seems to me that he was specifically referring to the diff links he was presenting as evidence. He didn't know how to make them look like this or this: [5] - instead he was using the "unshrunken" like this:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=50199233&oldid=50175006 . Regards, FreplySpang (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not misinterpret him. Rather, I only drew attention to a) his professed "extreme dyslexia" and b) his claims of limited editing skills. My observation of him at User talk:Jimbo Wales is that he's got less problems and more skills than he claims. Merecat 14:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then, the misinterpretation was mine. Thanks for the clarification, FreplySpang (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

hey

I guess I'm not blocked anymore. Where were you yesterday? I really needed you thewolfstar 20:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I was here. I've left some comments supportive of you. Merecat 00:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What comments where? thewolfstar 00:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Look at my user contributions. Merecat 00:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I meant yesterday, I really needed you. I saw what you said on my page today and responded to it.

You could have left a soothing comment like Lord Valdemort did or because we are friends, you could have left something even better.

Yesterday I saw the comment you left on Chihuahua's page. I think it was Bunchofgrapes that sarcastically told you to mentor me on my page.

I just don't understand why you didn't.

Are you okay? Maggiethewolfstar 01:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been very busy today, but I have been mentoring you:

1. Talk about the edit, not editor
2. Speak nicely
3. Cite controversial edits to recognized sources.

Merecat 01:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
----
Yeah, I know you've been mentoring me. I'm not talking about today I asked you about yesterday

Busy? Wow. When I needed a friend the most you weren't there. I guess there's not much more to say after that is there? But feel free. I'd be interested in what you have to say to that. thewolfstar 02:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ouch! Morton devonshire 02:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

--- Matter of fact because of the whole lack of support I got while in jail, most particularly from you, Merecat. I've been seriously thinking of leaving this whole hell hole altogether. I know a big cheer will go up when they hear this. The first thing I did when they let me out of the pokey was go to your article deletion page and defend your article. Actually fuck this place. And if anyone has a problem with this word..kindly go to my talk page.

I'm abut to commit Wikipedian suicide. If you even give any shit at all, can you say something real soon?

Can you at least check jimbo's, your, and my talk page for delete's

(personal attack refactored by ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC) as per WP:RPA and WP:NPA)

I'm sorry if you are upset. I'm not sure what to say. I am rooting for you and I wish you would not let others upset you so. I am very busy with a number of things I must attend to locally here. But I am here for a short while tonight. What's on your mind? Merecat 04:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ii just posted this and someone named swatjestet deleted it

I just sent a long comment to Jimbo concerning the cabal. I posted some wild looking stuff on my talk page. It includes a nasty thing that geogre said to (personal attack refactored by ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC) as per WP:RPA and WP:NPA). Oh excuse me.. Bishonen. I figure my days here are numbered mostly on account of I don't want to be here any more. I hate this place, with it's deceit, and its ugliness the whole stinking atmosphere reeks of the rest of the world. Is there anybody sane out there any more? I feel like I'm the only one sometimes who can see ALL the things that go on.

You're right. I object

I object. Under WP:NPA Personal attacks are not to be made. Under WP:RPA they can be removed by other editors. That was what I was doing. If you object to the entire blanking of his comments, fine. I'll go back and censor the individual words then. But, I think you might want to pay attention to what your "mentoree" is doing: comments like "Bitchownen" and "nazi fuck admin" don't imply they're inclined to make any progress. Neither is him threatening me on MY talk page. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

First I need to show that there is at least one uncensored line of talk open. Then, I can try to talk Maggie down from her distress. I am watching for and will strike vulgarity and threats only, nothing else. So far, I've not seen those from Maggie here. Please, stop pushing her. And I am explicitly asking you, regarding Maggie on this page, DO NOT delete anything she posts.Merecat 05:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No vulgarity? What do you call "bitchownen" and "nazi fuck"? It's all in the history. Mentoring does not supercede the community wide rules on personal attacks, and their removal. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If indeed "fuck" was posted here in a verb form such as "go F yourself", I'd strike it. As for "Nazi fuck", I'd have to read the context 1st, but would likely strike it. In any case, the only place I see that term occur here is where you introduced it and I am replying about it. If Maggie posted it here, I'd rather have the opportunity to deal with it myself. Frankly Swatjester, I think you being overzealous here. You do know that I voted for you as admin, yes? (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Swatjester). I am not your enemy, please do not treat me as one. What I am asking is that you allow me the time and space here to talk to Maggie without interference from you. I am asking nicely. Please abide my request. Merecat 05:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Swatjester, WP:RPA is a guideline. It is highly inappropriate to enforce a guideline on someone elses talk page. This includes refactoring, let alone removing, personal attacks from someone elses talk page. Especially if you believe you are the target of such an attack (the guideline discourages the victim from refactoring attacks against them). I would hope you would refrain from enforcing Guidelines on another users talk page especially when they have themselves taken on the role of Mentor. It is disruptive to Wikipedia to escalate confrontations in this way. Next time please leave a message to owner of the talk page and explain what you believe to be offensive and the owner can decide if or how to refactor or remove the comments. If you have an issue with the author of the personal attack, take it up with an RfC. --Tbeatty 05:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's highly inappropriate to enforce a guideline? That's ludicrous. Further, WP:REFACTOR, which IS policy, clearly states that "When refactoring a talk page, remember that Wikipedia is not a chat room. People may have chatted while developing an article, but is this going to help future editors working on the page? Probably not, so condense it to what is relevant to the article, bringing out the points of argument, while leaving behind the personal attacks and off topic comments about who should be banned, and who violated their sysop privileges while editing the page." That's exactly what I did...I removed the personal attacks. WP:NPA states "Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on third parties on sight, and although this isn't policy it's often seen as an appropriate reaction to extreme personal abuse." I'm sorry, I respect your thoughts on the matter, but I don't think that I acted inappropriately. And come on, an RFC would be useless here. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring is a policy? Please show me where. Refactoring isn't even a style guide. You are Refactoring (and prior to that blanking) someone elses Talk page. You don't seem to be a third party as you seem to have taken offense (and mentioned a similiar attack on your own talk page). A third party would be someone who is not involved in the personal attack. It is simply inapporpriate for you to follw this editor to his/her mentors talk page and start deleting their comments, whatever they might be.--Tbeatty 06:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Merecat 05:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Merecat removed my comment, 'I am not a vandal', above, despite a warning from admin User:Stifle. For you to have objected to Swatjester's removal of wolfstar's clear violations of NPA, and yet to have so blatantly removed my obviously innocuous comments seems a conspicuous lack of objectivity and judgment. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Dialog with Ryan

Ryan, Tbeatty is saying that Swatjester should not edit my talk page over my objections. Are you now saying that I cannot delete your comments from my talk page if I want to? Isn't that the same thing Swat is doing - you telling me what goes on my own talk page? Please elaborate, I don't understand your point. Merecat 05:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not responding to tbeatty. I'm pointing out that decisions about what content is, and isn't, objectionable enough for deletion here aren't entirely your responsibility (WP:NPA is quite clear) and that you've made questionable decisions yourself regarding deleting others' comments (which can be seen as uncivil when not WP:NPA violations). WP:NPA does indeed permit removal of personal attacks from talk pages and anywhere else. I'm saying that you should be consistent and carefully consider Wikipedia policy on your talk page in all cases. You defend your (uncivil) deletion of my comments, and reject Swatjester's (appropriate) deletion of wolfstar's not on the basis of their offensiveness, but on your opinion of the poster - and that's wrongheaded and terminally subjective. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, since this is the best dialog we've had to date, I'll try to stay on point. It's my understanding that whim, whimsy and personal perogative are perfectly valid rationales for edits on one's own talk page. Do you disagree with this? If I delete you here for whim, is that not my perogative? I think it is. What do you say? Merecat 05:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll ignore your opening assessment of our 'dialog' and stay on point as you suggest. I disagree that you can be uncivil at your whim and remain an effective editor on Wikipedia. I disagree that WIkipedia policy permits an editor the personal prerogative to keep blatant personal attacks on one's talk page. Instead of responding to my posts with interrogatives, I'd rather you avoid trying to have the last word, and just consider my advice. In any case, good night. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Dialog with Swatjester

Merecat, the entire purpose for talk pages are to facilitate in building an encyclopedia. What wolfstar is doing is not helping. Calling admins Nazi fucks, threatening that other users be shot etc...that does not build an encyclopedia. I truly appreciate that you're trying to mentor him/her but whoever he/she is obviously is not responding to the mentoring: case in point, when they attacked YOU for having a life outside wikipedia. So no I don't think I'm being overzealous here. Wolfstar just got blocked AGAIN for the personal attacks. RPA says that personal attacks should be removed. And while I thank you for your RFA support, that's irrelevant to this issue.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Swat, did you observe my reaction to Maggie's distress with me? Compassion. Also, who struck the "be shot" comment? Me. You are simply being unrealistic in that you are not allowing for enough interaction to occur on a personal level. People problems have a way of working themselves out. Look at your own RfA. Many of the "no" votes are from brooders who nurse grievances. Don't be like that. Be nice to people. Merecat 06:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Your reaction to wolfstar was very admirable. Very admirable indeed. the /striking of the "be shot" is the exact same thing as I'm doing here, except I'm removing the attack instead of /striking it. I'm in no way preventing him from mentoring with you. None whatsoever. I'm only removing the personal attacks, which do not assist whatsoever in the mentoring process. As for my RFA, possibly for some. I think I'm pretty nice to people. wolfcat has not done anything to me. I have not been mean to wolfcat. In what way am I not being nice? Contrast that, however, to wolfcat's attitude towards killerchihuaha, one of the nicest admins I've ever met on wikipedia, or bishonen, another extremely nice admin. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I need the text to stay on the page here so I can read it myself. BTW, it's "thewolfstar", not "wolfstar". She's sensitive about that. Merecat 06:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW: you asked for sources earlier Fuck this place, everyone here is assholes, go ahead you nasty nazi fucks, bitchownen. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me look at them and reply later. Merecat 06:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

In this context, "Fuck this place" is not that bad. In any context, the other is not that good. Merecat 06:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

merecat

Where are ya'? Are you around? I just made a link merecat and came to your article on guess what meercats. I'm gonna behave myself for a while. I know that'll make you happy. Let me know wazzup. Can you help me make a redirect and an extra page some time when you get a chance? Thanks, Maggiethewolfstar 05:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC) ps It looks like a great article.

Please be more specific. Page regarding what? Merecat 05:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter page regarding what. Just another page on my user page. Like some people make a page about beernuts or voodoo dolls or anything, but just for use on their own user:pages. Know what I mean? thewolfstar 06:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

At the end of your url in your broswer bar, add this /nameofnewpage.

Where "nameofnewpage" is the name of the page you want to make. If a page by that name does not exist, you will be prompted to create it. Merecat 06:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks thewolfstar 06:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

ok. Merecat 06:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a lot different when making html pages. That's sort of backwards from the way you make a regular web page. My son started to teach me php but then life took over and I didn't have time. Php is awesome. I still want to learn it thewolfstar 06:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Merecat are you there? I want to let you know that I really appreciate what you did when I was in the clnker there. You spent a lot of time talking to me and others I'm sure.

I owe you an apology for jumping on you the first time I was in jail. I can be such a jerk it defies description sometimes. When I get self centered it really blows.

Thanks, Merecat for being a friend. your friend. Maggiethewolfstar 07:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

hey

Hey Merecat, Thanks for your note. Don't worry about me ok? I think I understand what you are saying re th comments. I am I and you are you. Though you and are alike in that we specifically do not have agendas and are trying to help Wikipedia, people all have different ways of accomplishing things. I am calm and respectful now and do not intend or even wish to attack anyone personally. As a matter of fact I don't even like the whole thing..personal attacks made on and by people, not from me or to me or to anyone else. The only time I go out of the way and make specific personal attacks are on dictators like George Dubya.
http://earthhopenetwork.net/gw_bush_art_home.htm

please see the discussion here and please note my calm and respect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Agendas.2F_Full_disclosure

see what I wrote to Jimbo and see what prom says and what I replied
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo#trying_to_save_Wikipedia

In calmness and respect, respectfully and dutifully yours,
Maggiethewolfstar 19:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I really have to learn how to make a proper signature and learn more Wiki markup language.

ps Did you leave a comment on my page after the last comment I made to you hours ago? I can't find it. (Not the one about the $10,000 bill.)

I'm not sure. Merecat 19:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

sos for sam spade

Merecat, There's an rfc on Sam Spade. They are sitting around and eating cookies while they hurl insults and make dumb yuccy social worker type comments about him. I actually feel like throwing up. Can you help him? Thanks, Maggiethewolfstar 08:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat, thanks for helping. You endorsed your own comment by mistake. Can you endorse my comment? thewolfstar 18:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I did endorse yours, then I decided to write my own. Yours is a wee bit accusatorial for my taste. If you revisit the tone of yours, I'll re-endorse it. Merecat 19:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Merecat. I went back and took some of the nasty acussanotoriousness out of my comment. I am not changing what I basically say. If what you mean by accustory is that I pointed the finger back at the makers and signers of this rfc, then oh well, they oughtta get what they deserve oughtn't they? I am not tolerating this sort of thing on Wikipedia or anywhere. thewolfstar 21:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've add my sig. Merecat 23:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

rfa

Thanks for the support on my RFA. Unfortunately, it did not achieve consensus. I look forward to your support in a couple months when I apply again. Holler at me if you need anything. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I was tempted to withdraw support because elsewhere you were reverting me needlessly. However, I was unwilling to toss the baby out with the bath water so I stood firm with a "yes". As for next time, you'll still have my vote, but you need to cool it a little. You had some strong "NO!" votes. Merecat 19:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Spade RfC

Thanks for your recent comments on the RfC! I strongly recommend reading Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Sam Spade and responding to the points therein. -Silence 23:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I just gave a quick reply. I may reply more later. Merecat 23:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

---

this section deleted - funky sig is messing up my talk page. Please do not return until you get rid of that signature Merecat 04:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

---

(comment deleted - I've asked the both of you nicely to stop that Merecat 05:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC))

Merecat's talk page

I've sundry talk pages on my watchlist, many for users with whom I've had only tangential contact; inasmuch as many content discussions take place on user talk (cf., article talk) pages, I read many user talk pages, if only in order that I might insinuate myself into discussions that I find interesting. With respect to reverting your talk page, notwithstanding that I generally look with disfavor on one's removing anything from his/her talk page (I maintain a policy of not removing any comments from my talk page; I trust that, if they're frivolous, fellow users will apprehend as much), it's generally considered indecorous to remove warnings (even those that are constructive [cf., de jure/by template]) from one's talk page, even where one thinks such warnings to be altogether without merit. One is better served to initiate a discussion on his/her talk page with respect to the warning; most notably, even as a few warnings might be left in bad faith, most are sincere, if inappropriately offered, and ought to be discussed. Adding talk is always preferable to removing talk, IMHO, and, generally, under guidelines/policies. Cordially, Joe 05:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I am aware of common practice in that regard. If the user in question wasn't being so argumentative, perhaps I'd care to listen to him. His very 1st comment to me was simply not nice and based on my ad hoc dynamic talk page deletion policy, I sometimes delete comments like that sooner rather than later. I am sure that you, in earnest contemplation will respect and admire that my personal tranquility is also to value, yes? Certainly I am sure we agree. Tell me though, when did you 1st place my talk page on your watch list and why? A prompt answer to this question is mandatory, else I'll find your comment specious and will eventually delete it. When, I can't say. Cheerio. PS: I reject categorizing that comment which I deleted as a "warning" - look at the recent edits of the deleted poster and tell me what you think of them. Merecat 05:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the purpose of talk pages is to argue and discuss. You need to come up with a better justification than that. Please refamiliarise yourself with policy. — Gulliver ✉ 05:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The user's contributions do seem to be rather incivil and to tend toward the vituperative (or, at the very least, toward the tendentious), and I note that his/her warning to you came only after you warned him/her; I'm eminently confident, then, that your removal of the warning is proscribed by neither our policies nor our guidelines of etiquette, even as I continue to look on such removal with disfavor. I suppose surely that your personal tranquility is to be considered, but I must say, being wholly frank, that I worry much that one would be upset over comments (even specious warnings) offered on his/her talk page. I suppose I've difficulty understanding why one would be inclined ever to remove comments from his/her talk page, but I don't think your removal here to be otherwise inappropriate. I likely first added your talk page to my watchlist after noticing your contributions to several politics-related articles to which I also contribute and that I, in any case, watch; I add the talk pages of many editors with whose paths I often cross, if only because I'm always happy to find someone else whose off- and on-Wiki interests are similar to mine. Joe 05:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks your comments. Comments made towards dialog are always welcome here. If our friend is reading this and wants to repost some comments towards dialog without aggression, he's welcome to try again. Merecat 05:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Joe, but please realise that we are not here to make friends. We are here to create a fabulous encyclopaedia. Merecat needs to adhere to Wikipedia policy, and I reserve the right to demand that he do so, even if he finds that unpleasant. — Gulliver ✉ 05:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to Gulliver

Gulliver, there is a difference between unpleasant demands and demands unpleasantly presented. Bad news, if delivered in good spirit, is welcome here. But aggressive harsh comments are not. If I misinterpreted your initial comments, then I apologize for any slight. That said, what's on your mind? Merecat 06:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

And {{vandal2}} is a pleasant presentation of a content dispute? LOL. Please spare me this new disingenuous approach. I have already directed you towards the relevant elements of policy and refuted your aggression towards me on the 3RR notice board. I shall give you the pleasure of the final word. — Gulliver ✉ 06:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Gulliver, here is your very 1st comment to me. You may think it a "warning", but I did not see it as one. Why? Because a) it was not labeled as such, b) it was confusing and c) you accused me of lying. Typically, user warnings will not contain personal attacks. Had you not said "don't lie in your edit summaries", you might have gotten off on a better foot with me. Even so, if you want to start over, I am willing to give things a fresh start. What do you say? Merecat 06:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments in RFC on Ombudsman

You seconded, and lately revised moving the RFC on Ombudsman to one on links to the Whale.to site. Such an RFC exists, and is progressing. Meanwhile Ombudsman has been nominated for an ArbCom hearing which looks likely to proceed, on some other matter. I wonder if you could spare a moment to look at the Whale.to RFC and consider whether firstly it adequately deals with whatever should be subtracted from the Ombudsman RFC, and secondly whether you see any useful actions. Midgley 07:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added my Outside View. Merecat 20:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't make any difference if I wasn't a Wiki editor, they still wouldn't allow any links to whale documents. I only became an editor to get around their blocking of links, and created pages to anti-vaccinators in an attempt to get the views of vaccine critics onto Wikipedia as they find it harder to delete pages, whereas they can delete links and text with ease. These are his page attacks. Note well the books listed on the National Anti-Vaccination League page, and then see them vanish on his Anti-Vaccinationists page [6]. Also note he hasn't even listed whale as a site opposing vaccination, when it is the number one site for that on the internet, document wise. These are the page attacks I have listed recently: Deletions: Assemblage Point [7] Peter Fletcher [8], Lily Loat, Vaccination critics [9] Don Croft [10]; Richard Schulze[11] Deletion attempts: Neil Miller, Alan Cantwell [12] Charles Pearce [13] National Anti-Vaccination League [14] Viera Scheibner [15] Robert Mendelsohn [16], Beddow Bayly, Boyd Haley [17]Martin Walker [18]William Job Collins [19] Delete by merger attempt: See the books vanish from National Anti-Vaccination League, Beddow Bayly, Viera Scheibner, Neil Miller, Charles Pearce, Robert Mendelsohn. Now, these are all either vaccine critics or non-allopathic medicine, so I am sure you can see why Midgley likes to hide behind [20]. It is just amazing he can get away with it. And I have to laugh when antivax gets put down here as a fringe belief--not surprising is it! And I haven't even started on page text--all of the vaccine pages and all of the vaccine disease pages are written by medical people who have a financial and professional interest in vaccination, you wont find any naturopathic [21], homeopathic [22] or nutritional medicine view [23] on measles, for example. Then, even though there are numerous medical doctors and scientists saying there is a connection between SIDS [24] and Shaken Baby syndrome [25] with vaccination, you wont find any mention of that on the Wiki pages to them. john 20:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I stand by my Outside View comment at the RfC regarding this. Merecat 20:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

hi

i figured out what was wrong with my signature, had an open '' italics tag at the end of it, was messing everything else up, should be fixed now--ChaplineRVine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Welcome back. Merecat 17:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat, this user had a script for a signature. It messed up my page too. I don't think this user is real. Just a dumb ploy by the left-wing nuts atound here. (They think you and I are conservatives.) Maggiethewolfstar 20:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete the old entry. His current sig does not mess up my page. Merecat 20:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I did last night, thanks. I went to reply to a comment s/he left on my page last night. There was a fake "you have a message" box on top of page. I clicked it and it brought me to random pages including a list of conservative editors. They are playing lame games to try to catch us in something that doesn't exist for either one of us. Can you vistit my page? and go to bottom? Can you see now why I didn't want to say certain things right out? Look what happened when I did. I need to be able to talk without getting blocked or banned forever. Thanks, Merecat Maggiethewolfstar 20:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Fake editors don't bother me. If he's fake, he'll eventually go away. Also, I will check out your page. Merecat 20:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Dhwani1989

A block on this user seems to be in order. I'd put up a note on WP:ANI. 172 | Talk 21:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Merecat 21:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we should assume good faith; I see no reason to think he's a puppet of some political group, only that he likes putting pictures on pages about Democrats. It's clear that he has problems with copyviolations of images. I'm an admin, and will be watching to make sure that he doesn't continue to violate policy when he's unblocked. Cheers --BaronLarf 03:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Russell Feingold

I noticed that you made significant edits to the Russell Feingold article. When you make such drastic changes, it's a good idea to post about it on the talk page. A lot of the information you deleted is relevant and you did not warrant the deletion. I suggest in the furutre, you warrant deletions. Thanks :) --Shawn 21:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It was all uncited puffery. If it goes back in, it will have to be cited. Merecat 21:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Just as well, but it's not a good idea to delete things in sucha large fashion. And here at Wikipedia, we try not to make judgements about information, but rather verify them. I do not specifically have the time or motivation to provide sources, but i'm sure someone will. That's the process. --Shawn 23:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Baas reinserted that uncited morass, so I {{fact}} tagged the offending sentences. Personally, I think it should be deleted, but I can't control Kevin. Merecat 23:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that's probably the best option. A lot of the information does need to be sourced. And I know for a fact many of it can be. Thanks :) Shawn 23:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you are being biased and unfair in that it seems that anything that is laudatory to a liberal/Dem or critical of a conservative/GOPer, you demand citations, but not the other way around. E.g., I do not see a single citation for the complimentary biography section of Mel Martinez. You are being inconsistent by not demanding similar citations there. -- Sholom 12:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read Mel Martinez recently. Indeed, after the bruhaha I ran into at Katherine Harris, I was planning on new checking mostly on Dem. Senator pages for a while. Merecat 12:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You edited it a number of time approx 5 weeks ago. Go take a look at it and look in the biography section, and for that matter the following section (Senate 2004 campaign), and see that there is not a single citation. Not a one! Compare that to what you've done to the Feingold article, asking for citations on nearly every sentence in some parts. This is clearly inconsistent. You should be fair and hold articles to the same standard. -- Sholom 13:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No it's not inconsistant. It would only be so if I were complaining about the addition of {{fact}} tags by others. Merecat 13:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Do I have to spell this out for you? You inserted {{fact}} all over the place for Feingold after attempting to remove a completely non-controversial historical paragraph. You did not either remove any paragraphs for Martinez, nor did you insert {{fact}} anywhere for similar paragraphs. You are holding the two articles to two different standards-- Sholom 13:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Not so. I hold every article I edit to the standard of WP:NPOV. That's where you and I disagree. You think Russell Feingold is fine, I do not. I thought Mel Martinez was mostly fine, you apparently do not. What you are questioning is my editorial judgement, not my standards. My standards are those of the wiki. What you have a problem with is how, when and where I apply them. As for Russell Feingold, Kevin Baas started the SNAFU there, by blanket reverting my edits. Had he not re-inserted 100% of every excision I made, less {{fact}} tags would have been required. Your complaint is with Kevin, not with me. Please read talk there - I have already conceded that going slower might have been better. And there's nothing stopping you from {{fact}} tagging at Mel Martinez as needed. The fact that you do not tag Mel Martinez, but complain that I tagged Russell Feingold, tells me that your problem is more with tags, not with me. That said, thanks for your feedback. Your comments are always welcome here. Merecat 13:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You're not reading very carefully to what I wrote.

• You just claimed I have a problem with the Mel Martinez article, but I do not and I have never said so. What I said, and I'll say it again, is that the article has many unverfied facts, and yet you see no reason to demand citations, yet you do demand citations for biographical information on Feingold. Let's take a look at the two articles:

Martinez was born in Sagua La Grande, Cuba. He came to the United States in 1962 as part of a Roman Catholic humanitarian effort called Operation Peter Pan, which brought into the U.S. more than 14,000 children. Catholic charitable groups provided Martinez a temporary home at two youth facilities. At the time Martinez was alone and spoke virtually no English. He subsequently lived with two foster families, and in 1966 was reunited with his family in Orlando.... Serving as co-chairman of George W. Bush's 2000 presidential election campaign in Florida, Martinez was a leading fundraiser. He was one of the 25 electors from Florida, which voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 election.....Martinez was the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate seat of retiring Democrat Bob Graham. Much of Martinez's support came from Washington: he was endorsed early by many prominent Republican groups, and publicly supported by key national Republican figures such as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. His Cuban background and his popularity in the battleground Orlando, Florida region both contributed to his appeal to the statewide GOP in Florida. However, Martinez's nomination was far from certain through the primary election, and he was seriously challenged by former Congressman Bill McCollum. McCollum criticized Martinez's background as a plaintiff's attorney, and many Republicans initially feared that Martinez's nomination would destroy the GOP's ability to criticize Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards' background. Martinez was also said to be soft on tort reform, a major Republican issue in the 2004 race.

• Why do you ask for no cites? Look at all the assertions that were made? Now, let's take a look at some statements at Feingold:

As a child, Feingold greatly admired John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert F. Kennedy. He volunteered for the 1972 presidential campaign of New York City mayor John Lindsay at the age of 18. Later on, he would support the presidential campaigns of Mo Udall and Ted Kennedy.[citation needed]....The ads also contained a significant amount of humor. [citation needed] One featured Feingold meeting with a faux Elvis Presley, who offered Feingold his endorsement. [citation needed] (Bob Kasten responded to the Elvis endorsement with an advertisement featuring an Elvis impersonator attacking Feingold's record.) [citation needed] Another showed Feingold, standing next to a pair of half-sized cardboard cut-outs of his opponents, refusing to "stoop to their level" as the two were shown literally slinging mud at one another. [citation needed] In still another, Feingold was shown conclusively demonstrating that there were no skeletons in any of his closets. [citation needed] During the primary campaign, Feingold unveiled an 82-point plan to eliminate the deficit by the end of his first term. [citation needed] The plan, which called for, among other things, a raise in taxes and cuts in the defense budget, was derided as "extremist" by Republicans and "too liberal" by his Democratic opponents. [citation needed] Feingold also announced his support for strict campaign finance reform and a national health care system and voiced his opposition to term limits and new tax cuts. [citation needed] On primary day, Feingold, whose support had shown in the single digits throughout much of the campaign, stunned observers [citation needed] by surging to victory with 70% of the vote. With only seven weeks before the election, the momentum created by this upset win, along with support from people who came out to vote for presidential candidates Bill Clinton and Ross Perot, allowed Feingold to beat Kasten by 6% on election day. [citation needed]'

• In just that short amount, a citation is asked for every single sentence. What's your problem with the above. You say you are trying to remove POV, is a statement such as The ads also contained a significant amount of humor. POV? If, on the other hand you are insisting that you are trying to verify every single sentence, then why don't you insist on it for Martinez.

• You write And there's nothing stopping you from fact tagging at Mel Martinez as needed. -- No, I am being consistent, I think fact-tagging every single sentence in non-controversial setions is akin to defacing an article. I believe that for both articles.
• You write: The fact that you do not tag Mel Martinez, but complain that I tagged Russell Feingold, tells me that your problem is more with tags, not with me.. Again, this is not accurate. I don't want to play flag-tit-for-tat. My complaint, again, is that you saw fit to fact-tag so many times (version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russ_Feingold&oldid=50983344 has 25 fact-tags) while you somehow fail to see that the Martinez article doesn't need any.
• You wrote: What you have a problem with is how, when and where I apply them.. Yes, finally a statement I agree with. It appears that you are fact-tagging anything that is non-negative about Dems, and not demanding such rigor for Republicans.

Summary: ask yourself why you think NOPV statements in Feingold need fact-tags, but Martinez does not. -- Sholom 14:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

nother sos

Hey Merecat, Sorry to bother you. I can see you are busy with your own battles, I'll help you, nicely with these. There is a vandal on the dem party talk page. 71.139.8.28 did not sign his comments an then vandalized mine. What should I do? help, please. Thanks a million. Your respectful friend. Maggiethewolfstar 21:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

will do later tonight Merecat 23:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Black bloc

If you have the time, I need your assistance over at Black bloc, where the editor insists on adding a reference to his own website, Schuminweb, to support a proposition he makes in the article. I believe it's a violation of WP:OR Thanks. Morton devonshire 23:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

ok Merecat 23:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

hey, Merecat

Are you around? I need to talk to you bad. please? thewolfstar 03:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm here. Wassup? Merecat 03:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

hey!... are you still my mentor? thewolfstar 04:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

yes Merecat 04:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Merecat are ya around? thewolfstar 04:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

yes Merecat 04:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

hey. big sigh. I thought you were never gonna really talk to me again. thewolfstar 04:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't leap to conclusions. Merecat 04:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

But were you..pissed at me? thewolfstar

No. Merecat 04:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Merecat, can you please answer in more than monosyllables? thewolfstar

Possibly, yes. Merecat 04:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea. I believe between the 2 of us, we can start a grassroots movement against the oligarchy. thewolfstar 04:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I mean a quiet calm nice one. One that could not hurt anyone, only help Wikipedia and lots of people thewolfstar 04:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... there already is a grassroots movement. It's called patient NPOV editing, polite reparte and WP:AGF. Stay focused on editing, not "fighting the system". The system is not a Borg it will not subsume you. Merecat 04:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not grassroots movement. I tried to edit today and yesterday. I'm asked for reasons and references. I supply them. They are dismissed and confused with double think. The edits are so hard to make because of the abused system. You of all people should know this. People get blocked and banned for flimsy reasons all the time. It's exhausting. thewolfstar 04:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

you still there? thewolfstar

You will only get exhausted if you go about things the wrong way. Expecting too much of other editors is enervating [26]. If you do that too often, you'll get exhausted. It's your own mindset which makes you tired, because you get frustrated. You wouldn't get frustrated with ELIZA if you knew your were talking to a computer program, right? POV warriors focus only on their understanding of things and for that reason, it's very slow and difficult to pursuade them. Your job is to make a cogent talk page record of your arguments. If your views are pursausive to enough people, you will eventually advance the issues. Patience, grasshopper. Merecat 05:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

ok. yeah you're right. I know I made a lot of changes happen to the dumb dem party article. True, too, though is that it took reams of work and repeating the same thing over and over. Then again, you are right in the end. People are walking around spiritually dead. They can't seem to think. They don't see what's directly in front of them. It's scary, Merecat. This IS 1984. thewolfstar 05:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna get a peanut butter and marshmallow sauce sandwhich, a thing you could get lynched in some circles for. thewolfstar 05:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Good night for today. Merecat 05:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Night Merecat. sleep tight. thewolfstar 05:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Rapprochement?

Merecat, I just wanted to let you know a bit more where I'm coming from. I believe in fairness, NPOV, and consensus where possible. I lean towards "inclusionism". More importantly, I'm not a partisan hack trying to put my views anywhere, although this seems to be the charged levelled by anyone who disagrees with anyone else over a political issue. I wanted to call your attention to the page of Thomas M. Davis. When I found it, I thought it was a hack job against him, and I've been fighting a while to include more favorably material. Indeed, over there I am accused of being a Republican (while on the Harris page I am accused of being a Democrat). And so, I was being quite genuine when I wrote (above, on this page), Summary: ask yourself why you think NOPV statements in Feingold need fact-tags, but Martinez does not.

(Here's one bias I have: I hate political corruption).

I admire your mentoring- and modertating-type comments with thewolfstar above, and it convinces me that reasoned discourse with you is possible. I'll admit I wasn't always convinced of that (after all, seeing articles, more than one, renamed without any prior discussion, or an article with 25 fact-check tags is disconcerting). I'm open to reasonable discussion if we both take deep breaths before we write and/or level accusations. I'm not nearly the partisan (or "petty") as you might think I am. Sincerely -- Sholom 12:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any issues with you. You are not another "Nescio". Let's you and me see if we can avoid sqaubbles betwen us, ok? Thanks.Merecat 20:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

A worthwhile goal! Sincerely -- Sholom 01:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

hey from the grasshopper

Hey, Merecat. just saying hey. I am learning a lot here at the Wiki. I mean a lot. For that I am grateful..to you, to wikipedia, to the many and myriad mindless androids that walk the planet and the streets of wiki-land, and for all that I am learning. both here and in my life and projects.. Thank You, and with humble apologies to everyone who I did not thank personally for this.

And a special thanks to you, Merecat, the only one that I completely trust here at Wikimania, and to whose indomitable spirit I owe a renewal of faith in Wikipedia as a whole, sort of. Maggiethewolfstar 22:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Merecat 05:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting reading

Thanks merecat for an interesting window into your head. Its getting easier and easier for me to imagine you as somebody who is after all "working in good faith."

Sometimes another persons biases are incomprehensible. lol.

I do apreciate that you quit deleting things without cause. I hope that we can continue to evolve, especially in the direction of ad hominem arguments and straw man arguments, which seems to be a favorite tactic of yours, esp versus Nescio.

It might interest you to know that had you NOT been attacking nescio so flagrantly, I never would have bothered to join the conversation. Food for thought.

ciao Prometheuspan 00:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It's just my opinion, but I am reasonably sure Nescio is a true believer, POV warrior. Such editors never yield and always seek to advance their POV viewpoint. Merecat 05:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

rex

like the tyrannosaurus that lived a mere 071404 million years ago05:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. Removing warnings from your talk page is considered vandalism. You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia and your talk page will be protected from editing if you do it again. --172.162.197.122 05:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. Removing warnings from your talk page is considered vandalism. You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia and your talk page will be protected from editing if you do it again.--172.167.140.146 06:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)