User talk:Chairboy

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to User talk:Chairboy/Archive2. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

For past discussions, please see: User_Talk Chairboy Archive (Oct-2004 to Sep-2005)

Welcome to my user talk page! Please sign your messages with "~~~~" and use ":" indenting on replies for clarity. Please leave a note as to where you will be looking for responses (eg, whether you have bookmarked this page or expect responses on your own talk page). Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

So I should wait until completed and use preview verses publish?

I'm not trying to be a smart well ya know. I'm Just a little unfamiliar with how the editing works here. It took me quite a bit to figure out how to message you back. Your input would be greatly appreciated. I am an avid user of the wiki and I dont want to put junk out there so I'm sorry if it seemed that way

Hallefant

Thanks for speedying Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hallefant, but I was going to.

Vandalism

Hi you posted a vandalism note on User talk:206.139.211.21 on the 18th, please look at their current contributions Special:Contributions&target=206.139.211.21.

FireFox RFA

Chairboy

---

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (96/2/0), so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any queries about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Again, thanks!

FireFox 18:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference

Thanks for pointing out Category:Wikipedians who are pilots!

Quarl

Hi, I noticed you on Quarl's talk page. Although he's been reluctant for adminship I nominated him anyways... and I'm awaiting for his response... but feel free to vote and hopefully he'll accept Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Quarl .

~ Cheers —This user has left wikipedia 19:59 2006-02-01

Thank-you

The count is in, and now I join the crew who wield the mops and pails. Thanks for your support! I pledge to serve both you and Jimbo Wales. If you have anything you need, then please don't think to hesitate. For I am the very model of a grateful admin designate! ♫Bucketsofg✐♪

User:Ageo020 user page.

About my page in which i made an admin claim, I'm sorry. I just copied that section from another user's page. I line checked the code but i think i may have overseen this. Really sorry if this caused any trouble. Thanks User:Ageo020

Headline text

Phossy

Whats wrong with it?

How

Why did you delete my gobbledigook page? How did you delete it and how did you know it existed? I created it as a test 2 seconds before you deleted it.

Thanks

Please help me

Chairboy this is Penetrating Fluid, I saw your comment on my discussion page. I feel very strongly that I am being injustly censored soley because one administrator didn't know what penetrating fluid is and imagined it to be some kind of offensive term. Please read the discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Samsara#User:Penetrating_Fluid and if you feel I am wrong then I shall desist from further action.

RE DRV

Spiritpresent

After accidentally marking his page Farm Sluts as an attack (since to me it did not appear to be a genuine page) and notifying him on his talk page, User:Spiritpresent has apprently felt it necessary to call me mentaly retarded. After I apologized and retracted my statement he apparetly felt the need to go an make my article Doll Graveyard marked as an attack page. Could someone tell him to cool down, as he probably doesn't want to listen to anything I say at this point. -WarthogDemon 23:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry about the poor useage of pronouns. I meant "your" as in "it seems he went to my page and clicked on the article I started up," not as in, "my own property." Sorry for the language confusion there. And I'll speak neutral from now on. (Heck I consider all pages "everyone's page" - I love it when everyone contributes.) ^^; -WarthogDemon 23:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk: Main Page

I don't think these edits of mine should be reverted. --64.229.178.41 12:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've restored my edits there. Thanks. --64.229.178.41 12:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Persistent and unending dispute with Mr Conradi

I am, apparently, a newbie at this kind of dispute resolution. I have no idea what to do, but ask you, since you have dealt with Mr Conradi before, to please see [1] and advise me what the correct procedure is. I have endeavoured to correct material errors in his edits, as well as to remove inappropriate references to myself, and he simply reverts every time. He is well over the three-reverts rule. I am probably also over the rule, but my reverts have in every case attempted to correct and improve the article, while his have simply been gainsaying. Please help. Thank you. -- Evertype·✆ 13:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Subst:

Hi, I've been doing that since day one, but I'll take your word for it, as you've gotten more techno-savvy. Best wishes, Xoloz 04:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Usernames w/o user:

Hey, thank you very much. I can't believe I missed that part. Khorshid 04:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries, thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful languages

Beautiful languages on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Beautiful languages. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ihcoyc (talk • contribs) .

Why I am leaving Wikipedia

Chair boy said : "Your snarky comment aside, the reason the HOTSOUP article was deleted was that it was being used to create notability for the site (it made no assertion of how HOTSOUP met WP:WEB), which is just not kosher. I protected it because the people making the article tried gaming DRV by "voting" a number of times and deleting other people's comments. If you're sure you'd like to align yourself with them, you're more than welcome to, but it will hurt your credibility." - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I was not trying to be "snarky" (code word for unwanted criticism), I was expressing my newfound disgust with the entire Wikipedia project and I will admit that Wikipedia is not the place to do so. For that I apologize. As for my credibility, I would not want it aligned with anyone involved in this "wiki" project. I once thought that collaborative enterprises were a good idea but after being accused of vandalism by vandals, observing the most petty of personal politics, seeing information blocked for ideological reasons (there is still not even an article saying what HOTSOUP is in even 3 sentences - can a thee sentence article be corruptible? BTW how many articles have you deleted as opposed to edited? judging by the comments it is a lot.) and reading the most corrupted of articles I can honestly say that I have never seen an idea seem to have so much promise yet yield so much garbage. Goodbye Chairboy and goodbye Wikipedia. Apple Rancher 05:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

kthxbai - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Brassiere measurements (deletion)

What happened there? Am I doing something wrong? I was trying to reduce the length of my article by starting a sub-articleMgoodyear 19:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to start articles with content. Use the preview button, an article should never be unable to stand on its own. All you had was a template. Do it all at once. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I was just copying over the content! - will try againMgoodyear 20:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Peanut Butter Manifesto

Thanks for reviewing my article. I'm uncertain that the article fulfills the a1 requirements for speedy deletion. I'd be grateful for further explanation. Best regards - Ezratrumpet 00:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You're writing an article about a memo about Yahoo.com supposedly written in 1972. Is there anything suspicious about that you'd like to revise? Looked like nonsense, considering the date. If there's a legit article in there, then please repost it with the proper info. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The article was written today - my birthday, in 1972. Force of habit. I'll revise it. Many thanks! Ezratrumpet 02:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: The Tutts

I have recreated the page and have proof under References. Please don't delete it again! --SilvaStorm

Okay, you really need to stop deleting the article as I have clearly stated it is a work in progress. --SilvaStorm

Yes, I would like to know why The Tutts section is banned. There is no reason to have a band's section on here deleted. Nick waters 01:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)nick waters

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Check out WP:MUSIC to see why it met WP:CSD A7. I salted the page because Mr. SilvaStorm kept recreating it without addressing the A7 problem. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, that was a pointless thing to do. It is like deleting the Britney Spears article before she became a huge star...just wait and see. --SilvaStorm

Besides, what did I miss out on? They're a band, I had proof of their existence, and the article had a sufficient amount of info on it... --SilvaStorm

If you'd like to change the applicable policy, post to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). If you disagree with my actions, feel free to post to WP:AN/I. I still think you haven't read any of those links I sent you which would answer your questions, so I can't really help you anymore. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I still do not understand why this was deleted. They are a band, and a good band at that. They just are not that popular among the 'MTV' crowd yet. When they come out with their CD, they are going to be big. I recommend an unblock of this article.68.5.31.247 02:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Nick Waters

Re:Sxcbunni

Hi Chairboy - I read the username as "Sexy Bunny," which to me is a name that refers to or imply sexual acts, genitalia, or sexual preference including slang, innuendo, and double entendre. Of course, if you disagree pls unblock the user - I would recommend a name change though. Rama's arrow 17:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"MaverickFootball" is too closely associated with the NBA Mavericks team; although NBA, its quite close to the name of a sports organization. Please undo if you feel its unjustified. Rama's arrow 17:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The spirit of the policy is really more towards getting names like User:Hugecock and User:Gapingvagina. I'm concerned that overenthusiastic blocking of innocuous names is a form of WP:BITEing that will chase good contributors away and hurt our credibility as admins. I'm unblocking that user per your offer above. Regarding the Mavericks, admin consensus has been that it's more towards names like User:Dallas Cowboys, things that are clearly trademarked. 'Mavericks' is a popular name for school teams across the country, do a google search. I'll leave that block alone because I can see some merit, but I'd like to advise throttling back the username blocks a little. Ask yourself if it is CLEARLY offensive or CLEARLY infringing please. In the example of SxcBunni, is it text you might see in a Hallmark store? If so, then it's probably not offensive, unless, like me, you are offended by Hallmark in general. Regards, - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - its true, I'm a recently appointed admin and could use such practical tips - I'll unblock "MaverickFootball" to allow the user to clarify his intentions. Thanks for the advice, will definitely slow down. Rama's arrow 17:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries! Let me know if I can help in any way. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A question - as you can see, I'm a "strict interpretationist" of policies. A 3RR block I recently made was also based on strict interpretation. But now twice there was some criticism of my decisions. What approach do you suggest I take over policy interpretation - for example, your advice above is of caution and slightly "loose interpretation." Rama's arrow 17:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I read up on that specific block, and I can see the trouble. 3RR is an important policy for preventing back-and-forth churn. Personally, I feel that the missing ingredient was any sort of warning. The edit didn't appear to be a revert, and I think the 3RR report itself from the other fellow may have been in error, but I tend to believe that leaving some sort of "Hold on here" chillout warning for the offending party and giving them one last chance before blocking is a good idea. That gives them an opportunity to say "Hold on a minute, I don't think this is a revert" or "Thanks, I didn't realize it" before getting hit with the hammer. If 4RR happens once in a while because you give them a chance to fix their hurtin' ways, nothing is gonna break. We are not nuclear control engineers and the Wikimedia servers will not go supercritical and kill thousands if we make an error, so I tend to err on the side of WP:AGF. Also, one thing that another admin said that I took to heart is that blocks are not punishment, they're designed to slow down/stop disruption. Don't think in terms of "punishing a user", think in terms of "put the brakes on X happening until things can be worked out". You'll live longer, your blood pressure will come down, and somewhere, a flower will bloom just a little brighter because of it. Hope this helps! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I feel the 3RR violation was valid, your advice is most sound and self-evident. I already maintain that blocks are not "punitive," but many thanks for helping me develop a better decision-making judgment. I am in your debt and at your service whenever u could use it, Rama's arrow 18:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

GPS/Angara

The edit in question was made before your original message. Your original message seemed to be mor informational than inquisitive, and therefore it seemed as if you were not expecting, or requesting a reply. I don't tend to reply to messages unless they ask a direct question or I require more information. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fact tags

If you're referring to the Apollo hoax page, at the time I assumed they were vandalism, like maybe that one user (starts with a 'C', I think, but I don't recall his name) had come back to haunt us. I see that Bubba73 has restored them. I defer to his and your good judgment. :) Wahkeenah 21:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• "Carfiend", it was. Gone but not quite forgotten. :) Wahkeenah 21:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Revert Warning

I'm not sure if noticed but I have only reverted the Space Warfare page twice today and only 3 times total. I am clearly not in violation of the policy. In any case I think that I explained my reasoning on the talk page. I hope work with you in future and by the way I definitly like your powerloader costume, if you haven't already you should take a look at the Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual.Daniel J. Leivick 00:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Stephencolbert

If we know that the User:Stephencolbert account is not really an account for Stephen Colbert then it should be possible to remove the statement "Block pending identity confirmation" from User talk:Stephencolbert. The basis for a checkuser evaluation in this case has never really been explained ("It must be used only to prevent damage to one or several of Wikimedia projects"). If there was a request made to check the IP for the the User:Stephencolbert account then who made the request and on what basis? If the check was done, who did it and what was done with the checkuser information? Some people have claimed that User:Stephencolbert is a "vandalism only" account and so a checkuser evaluation should have been performed. I do not understand how we are supposed to uphold Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and Wikipedia:Assume good faith and still decide that the User:Stephencolbert account is a "vandalism only" account. I do not understand why Wikipedia needs to prevent discussions and remove discussion from an editor's talk page when members of the community want to discuss the editing that was done by that user. Members of the community should be able to ask honest questions about administrator and checkuser actions. "If you feel I've acted improperly...." <-- I think we are dealing with a unique situation that requires community discussion. My interest is in understanding what happened and making sure that Wikipedia's response to what happened is reasonable. When unanswered questions about what happened are simply deleted it only produces the appearance of a cover up. Why not help the community answer the questions that have been raised rather then erase the questions? --JWSchmidt 02:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I see the nature of your misunderstanding It isn't blocked because it's a vandalism only account, it was blocked because it's an impersonation account. As for "the community discussing the editing done by an editor", if you review the edit history you'll find that the vast majority of the edits are to the effect of "lolz you are so funny!!!1!!2!!! can I be on your show?". We discussed this as a community and came to the decision we did. I think it was on WP:AN or AN/I, can't remember off the top of my head. That's why I encourage you to bring it up there if you'd like. Tawker made the checkuser assertion, he was our designated contact with Comedy Central too, so feel to follow this up with him too. At this point, Colbert's word 'Truthiness' best describes the belief that it was actually him. We decided (as a community) after determining via technical means that it was not him, to put the page into its current state. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"I see the nature of your misunderstanding It isn't blocked because it's a vandalism only account" <-- This is not my misunderstanding.
"if you review the edit history you'll find that the vast majority of the edits are to the effect of 'lolz you are so funny!!!1!!2!!! can I be on your show?'." <-- It would be interesting to have a panel of objective judges and ask them to decide what fraction of the material you deleted can really be characterized in the way you suggest. In any case, each edit should be evaluated on its own merits. When there is an edit that does not contribute to constructive discussion the first step to take is to discuss the matter with the person who made the edit. If such an editor does not correct their behavior then harsher action can be taken. It is not right to delete dozens of edits from a talk page just because some of the edits are silly. If a discussion becomes old and stale it can be placed on an archive page.
"We discussed this as a community and came to the decision we did. I think it was on WP:AN or AN/I, can't remember off the top of my head." <-- I hope you realize the damage done to Wikipedia when project participants make claims such as, "we know things based on IRC discussions, but we cannot explain how we know," and "Admisinstraters do not have to answer questions about their actions and we can delete discussions and stop discussions because a bunch of us got together on some other page and decided to do so, but I do not remember when or where."
"Tawker made the checkuser assertion" <-- I had a chance to chat with him on IRC about the checkuser. The trail seems to go dead at that point in the chain of events. What we really need to know is who did the checkuser, on what basis was the checkuser performed, and what was done with the information obtained by the IP check.
"the belief that it was actually him" <-- This is really a minor issue. In my opinion, it is more important that we understand what happened on Wikipedia after the two small edits from the Stephencolbert account. "We decided (as a community) after determining via technical means that it was not him, to put the page into its current state." <-- Please provide the link to where this community decision was made. Please, explain the "technical means" that allow you to be sure who created the account; in particular, state who performed the checkuser action on the Stephencolbert account. --JWSchmidt 14:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. This really isn't worth fighting over, if you want to unprotect it and restore the content to its former glory, go ahead. I don't claim any ownership over the page, I was just the person who implemented the consensus. We probably did most of the discussion via IRC, and if that smacks of cabalism, <shrug>, that's not the intention, but it was the best tool at the time considering the nature of the issue. If you feel you've been wronged or that I've gone rouge, let's chat about this on AN or AN/I. I'm just a janitor and I'd hate to create the appearance of any impropriety. If formalizing the admin consensus here is needed, then by all means we should do it. If you'd like assistance in getting this done, I'd be happy to make the initial post for you. There is no conspiracy, there is no plot to 'kill teh colbert', we just did what we did because it was unnecessary disruption (not his original edits, the massive influx of 'loldongs! you rule!' posts). If your specific problem is with my protecting the page, chalk it up to "WP:IAR because it's the right thing to do" and RFC me if you feel its necessary. As far as villains go, I'm subpar at best. I don't even have any sort of good spandex costumes or anything, and my 'secret lair' is a modest house in a suburb in central Oregon, not the lava filled volcano caldera I might have wanted. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"isn't worth fighting over" <-- I have no interest in a fight. I agree that it was wise to do a checkuser on the Stephencolbert account, block the Stephencolbert account and since so much time has now passed it makes sense to strip the Stephencolbert talk page down to a simple request for identity confirmation.
"if you want to unprotect it and restore the content to its former glory, go ahead" <-- I think your action was a reasonable action; I'm not sure that you are the one who should have done it.
"We probably did most of the discussion via IRC, and if that smacks of cabalism, <shrug>, that's not the intention, but it was the best tool at the time" <-- I do not have a problem with making use of IRC in this way, but I know it bothers other Wikipedia participants. In my opinion, if Wikipedia participants are bothered by these sorts of things then it helps to let them discuss the situation. Since most people who were concerned seem to have lost interest, I'm basically satisfied with the window for discussion that was allowed.
"If you feel you've been wronged or that I've gone rouge" <-- I have no personal stake in this matter beyond a hope that Wikipedia as an institution can learn from what happened.
"I'd hate to create the appearance of any impropriety" <-- My questions about deleting discussions from the talk page and preventing discussions by protecting the page from editing arise from by belief that it does not hurt to let people talk. The more fundamental problem is that for myself and others it is not clear that existing checkuser policy provides an avenue for checking the IP for a user account such as the Stephencolbert account. I find it a bit strange that nobody within Wikipedia seems willing to discuss the matter....the consensus seems to be that it is wise to let this sleeping dog lie. I guess the key dynamic of the situation is that the checkuser policy is something that comes down to the community from the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation now has an "ombudsman commission" that can play a role in suggesting needed adjustments to checkuser policy. I'll just pass the matter on to the ombudsman commission. --JWSchmidt 14:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Refining checkuser policy for better guidance is a good thing, let me know if I can help. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for "Rotary Support"! :)

Thanks for your support at my RfA, which succeeded. Your support means a lot, and I was glad to see some references to my username! I'm curious -- are you a fellow rotary owner? Anyway,thanks again, and forgive my use of this dorky message box :) -- Renesis (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! I'm a big rotary fan, I'm building an airplane (Cozy Mk IV) which I plan on putting a turbo normalized 13B into. In the more immediate term, I'm thinking of buying an engine-less LongEZ and putting a N/A 13B on it. These engines are just about perfectly suited for aviation, not just your undoubtedly pretty RX8. :D - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for voting on my administrator tryout.--Rat235478683--

SETI

I have already discussed this with a moderator about the SETI, and as long as it is put as a conspiracy (not claimed as a fact, similar to a JFK conspiracy) it is acceptable. But how can I stop people from removing it (especially if they are not registered) without telling me why they want it removed? If a section this large is to be removed, I need to first talk to them as to why (debate maybe?). "We have confirmation - and I'm not going to give the name yet because we are trying to coax this guy out of the closet - but one of the senior most people in the SETI project" ... that is why the name cannot be given out (safety for the person's name). I don't understand why you will block this. For a guy to come out and make a statement like that, especially while at the same time bringing up Paul Allen's name. I don't think Paul Allen would approve of him doing so, yet I have heard of no denial at all from Paul Allen (he also brought up Carl Sagan name). For him to go public, in front of many people, and have his videos uploaded knowing well that he used Paul Allen's name is risky because of the wealth and influence Paul has (to use Paul's name within a lie would not do him any good), and for him to get away with it as a "lie" cannot work in this situation because Paul Allen has not stopped him. nima baghaei 16:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Nima, first of all, there are no 'moderators' on Wikipedia. I'm a Wikipedia administrator, which might be what you're thinking of, and our job is to keep the project afloat by doing mop-work by preventing disruption. When I removed the section in SETI, it was as an editor. I removed it because, as I wrote on your user talk page, it does not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This is not Art Bell. This is an encyclopedia, and the claim in its current state (without a published, reliable source) does not belong here. If you can provide a news article from a respected media outlet or something that otherwise meets the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, then it can stay, but otherwise it will have to be removed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why a "conspiracy" would need even more references! I have a video of a guy, coming out in public, using names most people would not use, bringing what should be considered a "conspiracy." I do not understand why a "conspiracy" need a Newsweek or New York Times for a reference! If I was to find a book written by the guy, and I referenced that, would that help? You see, I cannot tell how I can backup a "conspiracy" with a "respected media outlet." Conspiracies do not start sometimes with respected media outlets. If you do not find understanding with what I have said, I would like to speak with someone else on the board of administrator. If you remove this section, you must remove every conspiracy theory on Wikipedia, and if not, I will need to speak with someone else. nima baghaei 17:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No, other conspiracy theories written up on Wikipedia reference articles and books that were written that talk about them. It is not appropriate to "start" this using Wikipedia, as you seem to imply above. This is not a press release center, this is an encyclopedia. See WP:NOR for more information on why this is bad. If you'd like to contest this, then I suggest making your case on WP:AN/I. Based on what you've written above, I'll be removing that section now. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait, you need to clarify somethings. First of all, what is the "Wikipedia reference articles" because I would like to write one on the subject then. Second, what do you mean by "Based on what you've written above, I'll be removing that section now."? Yes I am taking this to that board, and I will have them take a look at it. Please go and remove all other conspiracy sections now. Hope you hear from me soon. nima baghaei 18:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If I've been unclear above, I apologize, but I'll try again. I've provided two links that are immediately relevant to why I have removed this specific conspiracy section: Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:NOR. When you see text like this underlined, it means that if you click on it, you can view the article. I'm not sure what "Hope you hear from me soon" means, but you sound upset. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You have not clarified anything new for me. I understand what the underlined text means, so is your assumption then I did not understand it? I would like to know once again how a person can have the right to remove a section without first informing the user who put up the section why it was removed. If you were the one who did it, I hope you will not do that for other users. You have to inform them or give them notice the moment you remove it. I do understand how to click on a link, thats how I was able to get to our short and continuous conversation page you are currently encoding in your memory. Would you like my to clarify what I have just said? You sound upset, believing that I am upset. Once again, what do you mean by "Based on what you've written above, I'll be removing that section now."? nima baghaei 18:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Calm down. Please review the policies I've linked to above. I'd be glad to answer any questions you have. In regards to your last question, I've removed the section in question from SETI. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to go and search for more conspiracy sections to remove? There are many, you should have a look, strange SETI was high-priority. What do you mean by "Based on what you've written above", I need to know which part and what I said that could cause you to decide so quickly to remove the section, for it seems from the way you have spooken that the you would have given me a lot more time then you actually gave me. I have contacted the Disclosure Group, and I am asking them to send me references. You have no right to just remove what I put up because of "Based on what you've written above." nima baghaei 18:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You've given no indication that you've either read the links I provided nor the reason why the section was removed. Until you do, I don't see what we have to talk about as I have answered your questions more than once already. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

for a start, my revert wasn't improper as you failed to provide a description and i believed the original version valid - secondly, right here, right now: i am willing to go into an edit war about this - consistency is of far more value to wikipedia than reliability --Danlibbo 11:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If you enter an edit war, you will be blocked. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

oh god no! please don't threaten me with blocking what ever will i do? oh that's right, for a start you need warnings, then i can get the argument moderated and if i am still blocked i can create a new account - watch me shake with fear --Danlibbo 01:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

see here--Danlibbo 01:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please review the applicable policies which I've drawn to your attention above, they should help resolve your confusion. If they do not, let me know and I'll try to help out. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

don't you wuss out by just being patronising - i know what you're arguing but i've shown how it doesn't apply - the conspiracy exists, mention should be made of it - it's that bloody simple - if you can't follow an argument's line don't get involved --Danlibbo 07:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

if you fail to make a reasoned argument against the mention of the conspiracy (you have failed to do so as yet) i will restore the section and we can continue the debate on the talk page --Danlibbo 08:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to recheck the thread at WP:AN/I. As I have said (and I suggest you be WP:CIVIL), the conspiracy theory isn't the problem, it's the quality of the source that asserts it. You have both promised to edit war and have made statements about coming back as socks if you don't get things your way. Both of these reflect an attitude that might be better exercised elsewhere. If you cannot edit Wikipedia in accordance with the principles established by its founder and supported by the community, then perhaps you should not edit Wikipedia at all. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• i've attempted civility and you've failed to answer the argument (since i identified to you the flaws in your argument and tried to redirect your efforts you haven't contributed and have only tried to evade your responsibility - if you get involved, either stay involved or get out) - now it's up to you and nima to propose rewrites to the section
• re the quality of the source - wtf? the source is the mention of the conspiracy theory - it's existence is the evidence - you still seem stuck on the fact that i'm trying to argue the validity of the theory (which is just stupid - why would i know what SETI's been up to, let alone the NSA or NRO?)
• if you disagree that mention of the conspiracy theory should be included on the page, provide a suitable argument and we can discuss it - but stay on point

--Danlibbo 21:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"If you cannot edit Wikipedia in accordance with the principles established by its founder and supported by the community, then perhaps you should not edit Wikipedia at all." - if you can't argue a point, then perhaps you should not get involved in the argument --Danlibbo 21:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've answered your questions, and I cannot control whether you act on the information I have provided. If you feel you have been wronged, I encourage you to request administrator assistance on WP:AN/I again or begin a WP:RFC about my actions. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

btw - i think you may have missed this --Danlibbo 22:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't miss it at all, you changed horses midstream. On the 27th, you and I are in agreement. Sometime after that, you seem to have switched to a viewpoint where the request for a source that meets Wikipedia:Reliable sources is somehow offensive and warrants you threatening to edit war, come back as sock puppets to disrupt, and so on. I am constant as the northern star, my position on this has been quite stable. My suggestion to you: Read the applicable policies and re-acquaint yourself with the 5 pillars. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

oh ffs - for the last time, i'm damn well aware of the policies and the bloody pillars - you argued that the video wasn't a sufficient citation and seriously misinterpreted my argument and i argued that it was the only possible reference and tried to clarify my point and all you could do was evade the debate

my suggestion to you: stop being so patronising and try to understand the difference between taking a viewpoint and acknowledging that a viewpoint exists

--Danlibbo 00:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with anyone being patronizing. This is about a Youtube link not being an adequete reference for an extraordinary claim. If you want to add a paragraph about the conspiracy, then please provide a reference that meets Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That's all that's needed. Let's go over a quick summary: You restored the section improperly, explicitly threatened to edit war, told me that if you were blocked you'd come back and disrupt as much as needed to prove your point, asked for someone to help on WP:AN/I and had my actions upheld, then you ended up restoring a subset of the section anyhow despite this, and through all of this, you feel somehow that I've been the troublemaker here? The facts do not seem to support your assertions. Your edit warring, threats, and incivility are all inappropriate. I don't know what's wrong on your side of the keyboard, but please fix it before editing again. One last thing, if a Youtube video is the "only possible reference" (which you assert above), then the text does _not_ _belong_ _on_ _Wikipedia_. I really can only point you to Wikipedia:Reliable sources so many times before I begin to assume that you're not operating in good faith. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

jesus christ! for a start i have never made any post on WP:AN/I and my original restore wasn't improper as you provided no argument - but the point is that I am not - repeat NOT - making any assumption to the validity of the claim in the video - but the existence of the video is surely not in doubt

just ask yourself: "has someone claimed that there is a conspiracy?"
the answer is of course yes - for a start there's the guy in the youtube clip, then there's also nima and i'm guessing plenty more

that's the end of it - the argument is over - a conspiracy theory exists

i'm arguing a theory exists (regardless of it's truth) & it should be mentioned on the page

you're arguing that a reliable source needs to be found before the theory can be true or not - I TOTALLY AGREE! the arguments are exclusive

--Danlibbo 02:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

and it's 'adequate'

pixel

1. {{AutoReplaceable fair use}}=WP:CREEP--Pixel ;-) 17:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)