User talk:Wikidemon

Criticism of Facebook

With the understanding that all the "unsourced" or "poorly" sourced you have mentioned, all information that was considered, "unsourced" or "poorly", have now been restored and more sources have been added. You do not need to to make anymore deletions of the section within this article, "Criticism of Facebook", section, ""Dislike Button" Controversy. All the sources have been added. Please make regards that the section is not intended to make the article a "blog". All the information is factual (as you can see, IF, you follow the sources). If you however would like to improve that section, you may. Otherwise, it is not intended to be marked as an example of violation of guidelines. DSW-X-Groove (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)---.

I hope this resolves many of my Big Time messes. I have spent approximatly 2 1/2 to 3 hours with a lot of effort in attempts to make this section additon accurate and reliable as much as possible while following guidelines. Please read if my revision to see if it violates the guidelines still: Dislike Button Controlversy. DSW-X-Groove (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I do see that the dislike button thing has gotten some wider coverage in mainstream sources amidst all the personal blogs. I do think it's just a technical / usability issue with how to do reputation systems All over the web, different services have thumbs up and sometimes a thumbs down, sometimes not. On all the social nets people are asking the same question. The answer is probably that if people could do a thumbs down it would hurt people's feelings. More negativity would make the services less enjoyable, and therefore hurt business. It might also increase the chances of gaming, incivility, etc. So it's not unique to Facebook. But if that's a sourced criticism / controversy, so be it. Disagreeing with the critics doesn't mean they don't exist, right? Anyway, thanks for all your time and effort, and for a good discussion. BTW, normally you would put a new talk page comment on the bottom of the page with the "new section" button. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Your note at ANI

Hi, I noticed your comment (for which, thanks), and dropped some thoughts on the ANI talk page, to which you may wish to respond. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

One: My talk page clearly says all additions to the page by any user will be deleted.

Two: The CNN article is good and does not violate user policies.

Three: I saw Ritter's arrest because I worked near the location.

Four: The truth will continue to be posted, grow up and stop trying to censor the truth! As long as there is a Ritter article on WIkipedia that does not mention his arrest for trying to masturbate in front of a teenage girl, I will contiunue to post the truth.

Five: Blocking me for posting the truth is bizarre. You are not the judge and jury of Wikipedia. You are completely out of your league in doing so and you should take this specific issue up with Wikipedia, because it will not go away.

Six: Here is your text...NEVER post anything to my talk page again, I do not engage in conversations with moral and ethical cowards...Jango Davis

[removed cut-and-paste of warning messages left to editor's talk page]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jango Davis (talk • contribs)

I will discuss BLP issues with the Scott Ritter article on the article talk page, and post any further notices regarding your edit warring and civility issues to your talk page. Whether or not you care to erase talk page messages at some point is your business; it is taken to show that you have received them. From time to time I restore messages to show the series of escalating warning that usually preceeds an account block. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your explanations, stay off my talk page. I have no patience for those who have hidden agendas, such as yours in obfuscating the truth of Scott Ritter's arrest for attempted child molestation and hiding behind Wikipedia's shaky editorial rules. Unless there is a decision from the top regarding Scott Ritter's biographical entry regarding his arrest, and to date there has been done, I will continue to post the truth, which is well-sourced from both CNN and the Times Union, Ritter's own home town newspaper. If you are a Ritter-partisan you should just say so and stop hiding behind someone else's editorial shirt's and pretend you are unbiased, which you clearly are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jango Davis (talk • contribs) 20:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, not agreed. I'm not the issue here. My warnings stand. Do not make personal attacks or insert poorly sourced scandalous information about living people, as you have been doing. If you wish to continue editing the encyclopedia, please find some productive area to contribute and do not use it as a place to advance your own agenda about someone you see as a pedophile. I'll avoid any unnecessary chatter on your page but your page is the place to leave notices and warnings. Your claim that you will delete comments without reading them makes it a lot more likely that you will be blocked if you persist. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

WD, it seems to me that the fact of Ritter's arrest is well-established and well-sourced. CNN is a reliable source. While the technicalities of the court resolution erased it from his record, Ritter had to acknowledge that the crime occurred in order to win that degree of leniency. WP:BLP is satisfied. I suggest that Jango's edit should stand and, if you'd like, we can continue this on the article Talk page. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I strongly (but cordially) disagree. I'll discuss the reasoning on the article talk page. Rather than revert warring, though, I might list it on BLP/N or RfC to get some wider participation. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A couple questions

Hi Wikidemon~
I just noticed something you wrote that started me to thinking:

In Churchill's case he was given tenure as a "special opportunity" candidate, i.e. for being Indian. The things he said and did as a self-declared Indian seem particularly troublesome when one adds the fact that he was not really Indian. There is a long history of wannabe Indians (see Impostor#People who "went native" - I wonder if he should be added to that list).

I'll admit to being somewhat less knowledgeable about this gentleman, having only first heard about him through his Wikipedia article, but a couple of things struck me as odd in your comments. Is it, indeed, a fact that he is not really Indian? If so, shouldn't that information be added not just to the "went native" list, but his Wikipedia article as well? I was also under the impression that Churchill was granted his position because of his qualifications and abilities, not his ethnicity -- although it may have played a part in his being included among the 39 candidates they reviewed for the position. The nature of your comments leads me to believe you have seen information that I haven't gotten to yet, so I figured I'd impose upon you for some pointers and a little direction on those particular matters. Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• On the off chance you assumed my questions were rhetorical, let me assure you I was hoping for your input. I've been recently prompted, for some reason, to revisit those pages. I figured I'd prepare myself in advance with whatever information and resources I could, from different persepctives, before tackling any significant edits. If you are busy, I can just raise the issues on the article talk page — but I was really hoping to avoid that shark pit for now, and discuss them with more reasonable editors first. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A few things are my opinion and/or reading between the lines, but the source for all this is in the articles. There are 3 AFAIK, the main one about Churchill, then child articles about the 9/11 essay and the misconduct investigation. The most obvious explanation, which is backed up by the sources, is that he claimed to be Indian when he wasn't in connection with his political activism (which was part of his professional resume and job activities as a professor), and that he was on a special hiring / tenure track on account of claiming to be Indian. He certainly spoke out as an Indian. I owe you a more detailed response, which I will try to formulate when I have a chance. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Doh - just noticed your last response here. While I do have your talk page watch-listed, I missed this edit notification somehow. Anyway, thank you for the response. You have already answered my most important concern: (i.e.; were you drawing your conclusions from sources that I hadn't seen, or just from those already in the articles). Don't feel obligated to expand on that; our respective views probably aren't all that different, and I suspect we both may have opportunity to revisit the subject as soon as January when the next legal dust-up is expected. I'm going to back-burner my article research until then, seeing as the impetus for my research appears to have been a drive-by provocateur and not a collaborator. I hope this holiday season is finding you in good health and spirits. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother here

Apologies, but why should uncivil and disruptive editors be given multiple opportunities to be that way (your suggestion of "again and again")? Why do editors like the one in question (and I could name at least one other) get away with WP:BAITing, etc. Surely it is not just because they write lots of popular articles about, oh food products or whatever? With some frustration, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at the pending Ottava Rima arbitration case here for some of the reasons. Everyone is trying to figure out why the most persistently uncivil editors are allowed to get away with it. I think you're observation is right about William B. Saturn, but this particular incident is easy to resolve and therefore not a perfect occasion to convince others to deal with his long-term editing issues. That's probably one of the reasons - noticeboards and administrative intervention are only set up to deal with current problems as a last resort when nothing else can work. They don't deal with long-term behavior very often. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that a passing admin warned him over his taunt on your page, which is a good outcome. Usually when I file reports, against the most aggressive of them, they quickly post claims that I'm a POV pusher, one of the most notorious disrupters on Wikipedia, I'm in a cabal that's plotting to get them banned because I disagree with their position, etc., and then some well-meaning but completely uninterested admin warns us both to stop the drama fest. So a lot of it is administrative laziness and rote responses, and the success of mud slinging in these forums. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice notes, and the insightful comments. I agree with all of your points. Best regards, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As a further comment, I'm familiar with the situation with OR. I believe the situation with productive editors and incivility is simply that they know they can get away with it. If the community stops enabling, the problem will become manageable. Until then, less strong-willed editors are driven away.

• I similarly note CoM. Both OR and COM are prodigious contributors. Both can be quite uncivil. In a similar situation as with WSS, I allowed CoM several "free shots" at personal attack and bad faith on my talk page. The difference is, when I asked CoM to stop, he did - and he gets my limited respect for that (although, as I said, I do respect his article additions). With CoM, he seems to operate with 100% projection (referring to those who, even inadvertently, oppose him as POV-pushers), but also seems to acknowledge his own lack of civility.
• WSS seems to revel in the "keep asking the same questions game", reminding me of the "doe-eyed naif" editor Gr, but less outwardly innocent-sounding.

Thanks again, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh?

Re: Your note on my talk page [1]. I see I'm on some list. How do you know the mention is favorable? Have you looked through the book? Think I can find it at a local book store? Thanks for the note & the box. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I ordered the book from Amazon and it's right in front of me. There's a half-page mention of your Hotel toilet-paper folding article which, I must say, is a wonder of Wikipedia article-writing. The history of its creation, and your subsequent comments to Jimbo's talk page about Wikipedia's finally being complete with that article's creation (which I noticed at the time, but avoided because you and I were not getting along then) are used as a humorous but sincere illustration of the content creation process, and used as a closing zinger in the author's introductory chapter. So all in all you are portrayed as clever, funny, knowing, and sincere... cant' ask for more than that. I was happy enough to see my username in print at all, even if in a less laudatory way, so I created the userbox and category that those of us immortalized in the book can attach to our pages. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Hmmmm. Thanks. Maybe I'll write Dago dazzler after all. Then I quit and leave Wikipedia to rot in hell forever. ... Then there was that American poet, whatsisname, who introduced the Prince of Wales to the Mint Julep, among other, more interesting adventures. But that's it. After that, no more! I'm done with the jackasses here. Well, just as soon as I finish off Fort Stamford, and I swear, that's the end of it and I kick the dust off my sandals and walk away. ... JohnWBarber (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears as if we're all mentioned. I'm kinda curious. Care to share WD? Grsz¹¹ 17:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Your are mentioned in passing. Quoth the book on page 14: "The tactics of Scjessey, Grz11, Wikidemon and others defended Obama from..." [and then it goes onto things I'm not supposed to talk about per a certain arbitration body]. However, it does not mention Noroton in this context at all, but rather the toilet paper anecdote. Most of the book is not about the Obama stuff or even American politics, that takes up a chapter or two in total, interspersed throughout the book. It delves into a lot of different editing areas fairly comprehensively, so it's a good introduction for the uninvolved into a lot of heated issues you might not have ever heard of no matter how long you've been around. Anyway, if you want to order it, it'll cost you $20 here. If five Wikipedians order it this week I'll bet the sales rank will go up from 500,000 to maybe 200,000! If you are spending money you might want to tithe a little bit to Jimbo's funny slider button at the top of your page too. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you please tell me what the book says about me? Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It says that nobody is allowed to create "Criticism of Barack Obama" articles, and that there are only two ways to insert information about negative perceptions of Obama: creating new articles or inserting information into one of the existing Obama articles. Both approaches don't work, says the book. The new articles rarely survive, and the existing articles are "defended" by the "tactics" of me, Scjessey, Grz11, "and others". I guess he left off Tarc, Lulu, and half a dozen other candidates. The book seems to have been finished in Spring, 2009, before the Arbcom cases and the topic bans. It says you tried both approaches, less skilfully than some: you created "Obama Bear Market", which got merged into US bear market of 2007-2009, and also that you lead 22 mostly unsuccessful "attacks" on the Presidency of Barack Obama and 9 on the Public image of Barack Obama articles. Funny, it doesn't mention the World Net Daily / Aaron Klein meltdown of March 10-11. Well, I can't agree with everything 100% but it's not a bad summary of the mood from back then. You get a little more of a mention than most of the rest of us but the whole thing is only a few pages. The guy must have done a lot of reading because he's got similar descriptions of the editing process of dozens of different topic areas. Please be careful about commenting - does your ban apply to my talk page? I enjoy discussing things with you and hearing what you have to say but I don't want to get you in trouble. Welcome back from Wikmo, by the way. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

And note - the author himself left a comment just below this section. You can talk to him yourself, maybe even reward his efforts by shelling out $20 for the book! - Wikidemon (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that detailed answer. I don't think my topic ban affects other people's talk pages, if the owner of the talk page is OK with the discussion. But there's no need for me to discuss that specific subject on your talk page anyway. Thank you for welcoming me back, and also for defending me during that time period. I am indeed very happy to be able to to edit articles about animals, science, technology, music, movies, etc., so I will do what it takes to not ever get blocked again. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

One careful reader! Thank you for adding QueenofBattle to the list. Andrew Dalby 11:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Appreciation

I appreciate your comments on photogate today. I am just stopping by to let you know that we may have had minor differences in the past, but I respect you as an editor, and hope that we can continue on with the improvement of the project in an amiable fashion. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

Hi.

I see you have an interest in Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

Sionce I am topic banned, I just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that ACORN has recently dumped thousands of sensitive documents into a public dumpster, just days before a planned visit from the Attorney General of California, and Andrew Breitbart has gotten hold of them and will be publishing them. Source 1 Source 2 Source 3.

Grundle2600 (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. For now it just looks like someone was rooting around in their trash and found some documents they should have shredded. Well, I'll keep an eye on it if something else happens. So far I can't find any outside sources for it beyond this one.[2] If there's anything truly scandalous in there, or if the fact that they're dumping documents they should be shredding becomes a major issue, maybe it's worth adding. It looks like all that's up to Breitbart. He hasn't said what he's found in the documents yet, only that he considers it a scandal. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. As long as you're aware of it, that's good enough for me! Grundle2600 (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sfba

Why shouldn't you use the correct template yourself? The usage is {{WikiProject California|sfba=yes}}. That is not so hard. Debresser (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Old dog, new tricks. I'll memorize that at some point. I'll probably create a personal for that so I can add it quickly - thanks for noticing. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Debresser (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I love you

... not many people like you... I love people like you... the people that enjoy editing on wikipedia... idk... thanks, dearie.

weird, we'll never interact again. best wishes in life.--208.126.112.61 (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Angel investor link dispute

Wikidemon, Hi! The Angel investor article could you use some of your input. Things have been going along as usual, until this week when a [to my mind] over-zealous spam assassin with the user name Ronz decided that 100% of the external links on Angel investor were spam, and therefore wholesale deleted them. Since you, I and the other regular editors have been religious about curating those links for several years, I was a bit taken aback, and left a nice note on Ronz's page explaining what we've been doing, and why I reverted the wholesale deletion. Ronz took exception to my explanation, and has tagged the article, posting a note on the article's talk page claiming that we are all wrong, and that none of the links comply with wikipedia policy and they should all be removed. I obviously strongly disagree with Ronz's actions and assessment, particularly because we have worked so hard to come to a consensus over three years as to what links are appropriate for this article and have, among us, done such a good job of keeping that section clean. Given your own anti-spam wiki-cred, I would appreciate it if you could stop by the Angel investor talk page and weigh in with your opinion. Thanks! Yorker (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Angel investor

While I appreciate your comments, and am highly impressed with your clear and reasonable response, I wish you had mentioned that you had been canvassed for your response. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries -- the article is on my watchlist and I would likely have weighed in either way. As you can see I'm not taking sides. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Obama article probation redirects

I've nominated Barack Obama/Article probation, Barack Obama/article probation/logs, Barack Obama/Article probation/Logs and Barack Obama/Article probation/Requests for enforcement for deletion, discussion is here. Cenarium (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

DAFKA

Thanks for your comments and contributions to improving the DAFKA article after I commented on it at the WP:BLP noticeboard. Ma^t_chups 02:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Worth monitoring

I don't know if you are monitoring the big ol' ruckus at WP:ANI. Obviously it would be inappropriate for either of us to comment there, given our editing restrictions. It will be interesting to see what will happen when these expire - in just over two weeks from now. Recommend you buy a large tub of popcorn! -- Scjessey (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer not to comment on that given the interaction restriction, which does not have a time limit. I would suggest giving it a wide berth and some time. Although Arbcom is the logical -- probably the only -- forum, I would email an Arbcom member to get clearance, because there was some sentiment that going before Arbcom for clarification of their sanctions or to request enforcement is itself a violation. That doesn't make sense but at least one administrator took that position. - 19:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole system is retarded, to be honest. The interaction restriction prevents me from passing this picture on to our mutual friend with a penchant for baconery, for example. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The Arbcom ruling was slow, arbitrary, and not very thoughtful, indeed. I have a feeling this one can sort itself out without our help. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm just curious about what will happen when the topic ban expires. Personally, I am planning to gradually return to editing Obama-related articles (although I predict it will take a good while to get up to speed) because the topic interests me. I'll probably focus on the low-trafficked articles to start with, restricting myself to non-controversial stuff for a while. Later on, I plan to return to dramatic edit warring with photon torpedoes the main articles. I feel like I can handle it without getting into trouble. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The articles have all been relatively free of tendentiousness, probably beginning in April or May. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL I wonder why? ROFLMAO. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably not what you think. They had actually quieted down before the Arbcom ruling. Most likely the partisans here on Wikipedia finally realized Obama won the election, and also whoever was behind all the sockpuppets must have moved onto something else. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace and I are discussing the interaction restriction problem on his talk page, BTW. He sees the need for a clarification. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably a request for amendment. I don't see any easy resolution. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, and as I noted on my talk page, I'll talk to an Arb about this at some point. Rather than any formal request for clarification or the like I'm more curious to see how these kind of situations have been dealt with in the past (i.e. two parties prohibited from interacting who are then allowed to return to an article from which they were topic banned, and where discussion is often contentious). Both Scjessey and ChildofMidnight are welcome to return to Obama editing in a couple of weeks, and it would be best to head off any confusion or misinterpretation about what constitutes "interaction" (e.g. if Scjessey starts a thread on Talk:Barack Obama, is it okay for C of M to weigh in without referring to Scjessey directly, or vice versa?). I'll try to clarify this and get back to both of you and C of M regarding this matter, assuming I get any useful information. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! - Wikidemon (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Note

that I'd mentioned you at User_talk:Craftyminion#Inflammatory_commentary [3]. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Everything else aside, the crusty humor in the response to your comment there was rather funny. Always look on the bright side... - Wikidemon (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of PayPal Mafia

A tag has been placed on PayPal Mafia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Eeekster (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

<redacted> - Wikidemon (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Accused

"...just been accused of violating the interaction ban..."

Got a diff? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I would rather not discuss that here on my talk page, for reasons I am also reluctant to discuss. Thanks for catching that over-eager CSD tagger, by the way. That's the first time anyone has ignored my "in creation" template notice. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As you wish. If you ever need to share anything sensitive with me, you can always contact me in confidence. You're welcome on the CSD thing, BTW. "PayPal Mafia" is a common term now, and if the tagger had done a basic Google search the notability would've been self evident. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Or a Wikipedia search - the phrase comes up a number of times and I'm having fun tracing down the whole web of things for a new template. It's a fairly important subject not to have its own article yet, a cluster of people who've launched several new industries in a decade (social nets, social gaming, online transactions) and generated tens of billions of dollars of private wealth in the process. It's no wonder that Wikipedia moved its offices to ground zero there in South Park, San Francisco. They're a block or so from Wired Magazine... you could throw a stone out their window and probably hit a dozen dot com companies. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I just stumbled across an accusation such as the one you mentioned, although in this case it is hard to ascertain who the commenter is actually accusing. Frankly, I think this interaction ban is childish and unnecessary. Normal civility and good faith-related policies should be more than adequate to handle this sort of thing. I don't like having to walk on eggs while wearing a blindfold. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

...and while being sucker-punched...logically it must be you or me. Have you been accused of violations? - Wikidemon (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny world, check out my latest edit to PayPal Mafia.[4] I had no idea. You learn a lot when writing articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The most recent example I can think of was when Malleus Fatuorum tried to kick me out of an AfD discussion here. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add that CSD notice back, since you are so intent on promoting WND now, you POV warrior! -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I was assuming it is a reference to the 5 or 8 or however many Arbcom motions on the Obama articles case between June and now. Don't worry about the Paypal Mafia. They're mostly apolitical. Their politics is money. Wikidemon (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I take that back. They're a bunch of libertarians! That's why they are so stubborn and do everything their own way, also where they got the idea of trying to undermine the banking system by creating worldwide private electronic currency. The original idea was for Palm Pilots! Everyone in the world was going to own a palm pilot and beam each other money that way, safe from the prying eyes of the government. - 23:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Festivus!

Happy Festivus! Grundle2600 (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Merry Christmahanukwanzukah!- Wikidemon (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Grundle2600 (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The only humane thing

Wikidemon, I'm writing this because you reallys deserve a better response than I was able to give on the page. As you will o doubt be very aware, I'm thoroughly pissed off with the situation on climate articles. My first "baptism" in climate was a very simple sentence on the "hockeystick". It took me over a week (and remember at the time I was a believer in global warming) to realise that I was never going to get any kind of intelligable sentence into the article. It took a number of years but finally, the climate had cooled sufficiently for me to think it was reasonable not to talk about global warming as currently happening without also mentioning that suggest the climate is currently cooling. Again, this was resisted at every attempt, and it will be so long as the current editors keep editing. These aren't big things, they are the simplest patently obvious things which any reasonable editor would accept. When it comes to the "science", which is so hopelessly reliant on the "climategate" scientists, then there's not a hope in hell of getting any changes. And of course, having had to sit and watch their deceitful abuse of the wikipedia process all these years to keep their POV in the articles, having to bite my toungue ... you can imagine that however hard I try I'm not going to have the most neutral view when it comes to climate! Isonomia (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello.

Hello.

If you object to me putting this message on your talk page, then you can erase it, and I will understand, and I will not object to your erasing it.

As you know, I have been topic banned from articles and article talk pages relating to U.S. politics. As far as I am aware, my topic ban does not apply to the talk pages of users who are willing to let me discuss U.S. politics on their talk page. If you object to me making this post on your talk page, then you can erase it, and I will understand.

Anyway, I would like to draw your attention to this edit that was made by Newross to the Kevin Jennings article. Specifically, I would like to draw your attention to Newross' removal of Jennings' admission in his autobiography that he had a past history of illegal drug use. Given that Jennings is Obama's Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, this information is extremely noteworthy.

In the comment section, Newross wrote, "rewrite paragraph about Christian right criticism." The word "rewrite" is not accurate. The word Whitewash (censorship) is the most accurate description of Newross's edit.

What do you think of Newross removing that information from the article?

Again, if you object to me making this post on your talk page, you can erase it, and I will understand.

Grundle2600 (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't see any problem with you (Grundle) posting this here but you might want to take a look at wp:PROXYING. Just wanna make sure you don't get in unneeded trouble again. I'm saying this in good faith and for your own good. The more you know the better, right? Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Magnificent Clean-keeper. I see we share the same concern about not wanting me to get trouble, and I thank you for that. I just wanted someone at wikipedia to talk to about this, and Wikidemon has always seemed very fair and reasonable. I appreciate your concern. If an administrator was to tell me that my topic ban applied to user talk pages, I would abide by that. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

At that link it says, "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called 'proxying', unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them." Well of course we all know that Wikidemon is perfectly capable of thinking for himself. I'm not even necessarily asking him to change the article back. I just wanted to see if someone was willing to acknowledge my point that that information should not have been removed from the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Appreciated that you took is as a positive good faith advise as I meant it to be. And yes, I know Wikidemon will only edit within the guidelines as s/he always did and I don't have to advise him/her in regards of this at all. As long as you post such things here (at Wikidemon's talk page) there is no concern at all from my side. Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, I don't mind at all. I'll take a look. I enjoy hearing from you and I take your observations seriously even if I disagree. I don't think we'll have to worry about me becoming a proxy editor. If you're concerned about violating the topic ban you might want to ask for a clarification from the administrator who announced it. I certainly don't see any harm. If you just post on my page, I'll let you know if it's getting to be too much. So it's no trouble to anyone but you and me. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I see it was User:Master of Puppets. What an intimidating username! Anyway, why don't I ask him/her myself, that might be better received. I'll be busy for at least several hours but sometime within the next day I'll pose the question. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, multiple thanks for all of that! And of course I will abide by whatever he says. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"What an intimidating username!"

And what about your change from "Wikidemo" to "Wikidemon"? *big smile* The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the original name was kind of an accident. I started a Wikipedia account as a test - nothing sinister, just trying to figure out how the software and system worked, so I called it "wikidemo", as in a demo / guest / test account on a wiki. During the First Obama Wars someone made a typo in process of complaining about me and called me Wikidemon. I thought it was kind of cute and I liked the double meaning (you know, Daemon (computer software)) so I changed my name accordingly. I forgot to reserve the old account so naturally a doppleganger grabbed it and had some fun. I guess if you're having a dispute with a demon, it could seem a little odd. Most Wikipedia names are odd. Is there a userbox for user pages where you can explain why you chose your name? That would be a fun thing to encourage. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi you demon you. I know all about your history in regards to your username ;) and you're right, most names are odd, just look at mine. But "one has to take what is not already given" (to someone else). Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As it says on my userpage, my username is a totally G-rated video game reference. However, the word grundle (images at article are not safe for work) also has an X-rated meaning, which I am not too happy about. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw that long time ago and it still gives me a good laugh. *giggle* Hope you're not taking it the wrong way ;) , The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course I don't take it the wrong way. I think it's hilarious! I think the game's programmer was trying to make a reference to the character Grendel from Beowulf, and was not familiar with the slang usage of the term. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither was I familiar with the slang usage and ones "brainstorming" is non fiction anymore (in the near future I guess) we might know the programmers intend. Just hoping they don't "brainwash" me before this happens. :) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: Wikidemon, hope you don't mind us soaping up your talk page :O , :)) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009

Based on your work on political articles, I'm hoping you can help out on this one. It's of most importance and interest right now: http://stats.grok.se/en/200912/United%20Nations%20Climate%20Change%20Conference%202009 I was, as I generally do with politicians, current events and related articles, trying to add links to ongoing coverage from the major news media around the world. 'Arthur Rubin' has been trying to use various (rather non-applicable, imo) rules as excuses to eliminate them. For current controversial events, I think we've all experienced the various 'points of view' which get added and deleted, often with undue weight. So, I've found these sorts of External links to be very helpful to our users, and help prevent Wikipedia from becoming a laughingstock. Once the conference is over and cooler heads prevail, they may or may not be as necessary. Right now, I feel very strongly that eliminating them does a disservice to our readers and I do find myself questioning the good faith of Arthur Rubin. (Skimming his Talk page, I don't appear to be alone.) Anyway, I was hoping you could do something as it's a bit pointless to go through normal channels which wouldn't likely resolve the issue until after the Conference is over. Unless there's something I can do that I don't know about? Anyway, thanks for any help. Flatterworld (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Jimboquote

Hello Wikidemon, I am thinking about nominating Template:Jimboquote for deletion. Have your thoughts on the need for such a template changed since the last TfD nearly two years ago? The template has not been used on policy pages for some time—it appears to be only be used in archives and talk pages—and declarations from Jimbo no longer ipso facto carry weight of policy they once did. A regular quote template for Jimbo quotes will suffice; a special template is unwarranted. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Understood. If it's not in use then I have no objection to its deletion, and in fact I wouldn't mind if you put a speedy tag on it as a general housekeeping / maintenance deletion. Looking back, it was kind of WP:POINTy in the first place. The one thing I'm concerned about is that it would mess up the archive and history pages, and people do often look to historical versions of policy pages. How about deprecating it instead? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Building consensus on copyright issue

You were involved in a discussion regarding the use of copyrighted architectural designs on Wikipedia pages and I'm trying to find community consensus on a gray area. If you can, please let me know at what point you feel these images should be replaced here. Thank you so much! DR04 (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. I know some things about copyright, but engineering / architecture designs is one of my zones of ignorance. It might be fun to bone up on the legal angle, which of course is not the same as non-free use but it's good background. Thanks! - Wikidemon (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hampster dance.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hampster dance.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

WGKF

Hi Wikidemon. You're right about your message here. Thanks for cleaning up the article on WGKF. I must say that I am not a native English speaker, so sometimes it "sounds" good to me, but it will hurt an English native speaker's ears. Please, could you also have a look at these articles: GKIF and Genseiryū??? I would be most grateful! Thanks... MarioR 12:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sock?

It wouldn't surprise me at all if User:Róbert Gida turned out to be a sock of Gordon Bleu, or perhaps the infamous Bryan. Patterns are similar. BTW, I'll be rejoining Obama articles on Monday, or possibly Tuesday. I've watchlisted a couple today so I can start getting up to speed on what's going on. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a distinctive pattern in terms of tone, format, subject matter. Until very recently everything was very calm - the usual vandals, racists, questions over the meaning of African-American, and a few trolls and test edits, but that's all easily dealt with. There was a huge drawn-out debate, not yet settled, on the completely harmless issue of whether we should use the slightly informal terms "overnight" and "rising star" to describe Obama's ascent to power. There seems to be a sudden upsurge of "OMG liberal bias" on the main Obama page in the past few days, and some of this may indeed be socking. We have yet to find a good way to spot and sequester the socks without triggering wikidrama, no progress on that front and because it's been so long I think memories have faded. I think it's more important than ever to assume good faith and give everyone a few chances. Some people who start off looking like POV probems or trolls turn out to be sympathetic editors who simply haven't gotten the hang of Wikipedia or the Obama articles yet. "I think this article is biased and all you guys are protecting the article from negative information", as much of a problem as that has been, is a normal human reaction to someone who is coming from a right of center (or left of center) political viewpoint. Expressing it once, and perhaps missing the discussions, history, FAQs, etc., is an honest good faith mistake, and I do think people are too quick to forget that and jump on the newbies. And then a newbie may see an unexpected attack as confirmation of their suspicions and get a battleground mentality. Kind, respectful, patient discussion is a lot more effective. It's only if they keep at it indefinitely, or are socking or edit warring, or are just out and out beligerant, that the AGF runs out and we have to be firmer, either directly or by asking for administrative help. I know you don't like suffering what you see as foolisness, but if I can offer you one suggestion for returning, it's lay low, avoid doing anything controversial, keep your statements and edit summaries dignified and non-accusatory, and do not edit war past 1RR except clear cases of vandalism (and even there, someone else is sure to spot it and revert). Fairly or not, people will be watching your return, so you want to come in as well as possible. I don't want to see you being the first to get blocked or re-banned. I also see you're getting a little closer to the editor we're not supposed to interact with. I'd continue to give that a wide margin, except in any absolutely necessary meta-discussions where we're basically asking those in authority what we should do. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Once my topic ban expires, I see no reason why I shouldn't edit and contribute as normal. Bear in mind that I will still be under a 1RR restriction (of sorts), and I cannot imagine editing as prolifically as before because I am involved in so many other places now too. Regarding He Who Shall Not Be Named, I am not at all concerned about being "closer". I will not be denied my right to participate based on his proximity. I have done everything I can to avoid him for months, but with the expiration of the topic ban imminent, I will be avoiding interaction (rather than contact) per the sanction. I always thought Wikipedia was big enough to avoid him, but it turns out that it isn't. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, your paragraphs have grown in size considerably. Wassallthataboutthen? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason is practical. Paragraph length is due to sleepiness and slow Internet connection, both of which facilitate spewing but hamper editing. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me for kibitzing: I was tipped off to this on my own talk page. Gordon Bleu, yes. Still, I can't get too worked up about that. Me, I'm more worried by some of the defenses against criticisms of the article, and particularly the defenses of one editor (neither of you): they seem about as ideological as what they oppose, worse mannered, and all in all counterproductive, even though I often agree with much of them. A well-meaning editor who I think is too enthusiastic for the good of the talk page or himself. But maybe it's just a passing phase. -- Hoary (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

True, if it is GB that was an easy sock to deal with. I try to urge all to be respectful, I'm not sure what else to do. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Raz

Sure and it's my pleasure - glad to be of assistance. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Venture Capital Firms

Hi - I noticed your attempt to refine the categorization of venture capital firms. I think this is an example of Wikipedia:Overcategorization and to my mind a miscategorization for many of these firms. For example, Atlas Venture, Tenaya Capital, M/C Venture Partners just to name a few would not be considered "Boston venture capital firms" as they have very large operations outside of Boston. Charlesbank Capital Partners is not even a venture capital firm. More to the point, separating out the venture capital category based on geography is a mistake in my opinion. the only subcategorization i would really support is based on investment strategy and that is so difficult i have not attempted it. I think there is value in having all of the firms in a single category. But I would like to understand better how you think about the category before I propose undoing this. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 16:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The underlying purpose is not overcategorization at all, but you've spotted the difficulty I found in this. To start, there is already an underpopulated category, Category:Silicon Valley venture capital firms. This is a valid category for a few reasons - although perhaps the best known venture region in the world (at least within computers and information technology) Silicon Valley has a distinct flavor of venture capital, with its own history, personalities, culture, business norms, and most particularly, a narrow focus in terms of investment targets and geography. Most of the celebrated venture firms in Silicon Valley are local, and do not set up significant satellite offices. A reader wanting to understand venture capital would be well informed to be able to navigate quickly among venture firms in the valley. My impetus was that I found some significant tech venture firms in San Francisco, which in many respects is part of the Silicon Valley venture scene, although there are a few differences: SF tends to fund Internet tools, social networks, content, entertainment, and e-commerce, typically at an early stage, but not so much hardware, biotech, or more traditional software. I was considering renaming the cateogry "Bay Area venture capital firms", but that would strike people as odd because that is not the common conception. So I made a new category for San Francisco VC, and made the SF and SV both child categories of this. In process of doing that, I found a similar concentration of VC firms in Boston and, to a lesser extent, New York. There is a family and lineage of VC firms in Boston, as there is in SV, but Boston firms tend to be more national and international in scope with offices in diverse locations, and NY firms even more so. Also, Boston and NY firms tend to be larger and part of broader investment banking portfolios, often involving hedge funds and other public securities investments. This is all impressionistic, I can't be 100% sure these observations are correct, but the point is that there are some clusters of different flavors of firms in different parts of the US. My model here is the companies category, where we have companies by geography, and then detail companies in each city or state. Do you have a suggestion for how these can best be organized so that they allow the reader to get a quick link to venture firms that have a particular regional focus, without detracting from the ability to see all the venture firms? We could do this as a list article, but lists tend to be harder to maintain than categories. Do you know anything about adding parameters to categories, or putting categories into templates, e.g. {{template venutre capital|type=firm|offices=[[Waltham, Massachussets]], [[Menlo Park, California]]|...etc} - ? I could perhaps work on a template, and then deciding on categories or some other categorization scheme would be a lot more automated. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Butting in

Ha! Well I don't know about anyone else, but I don't think it's 'butting in' when an intelligent, long time editor gives their opinion on matters of a contentious issue. So I don't think there is a problem there. As for any sock investigation, I don't believe that was what Jessey was suggesting. I think he was advocating a request for comment about user conduct, which I stated I thought unnecessary at this time. Although I am in disagreement with you about the editor in question(Jzyehoshua)). I don't think adding accusations(eugenics, Infanticide, Hitler innuendos) are either reasonable, thoughtful or polite. On the other hand, the user has shown a willingness to retract at least some of the hyperbole. MY opinion on the matter, as of right now, is known. So I'll just see what happens and hope for the best. Happy Holidays!DD2K (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"Climategate"

What a gem, I couldn't resist

You are completely wrong on this issue. If "Watergate" isn't used to title the Watergate scandal (a "real" scandal that led to Nixon's resignation), then there is certainly no way "Climategate" can be justified. It's in violation of WP:NPOV because it gives credence to fringe views of scientific fraud. I'm also horrified that you should use Google hits as your justification. The only conclusion I can possibly draw from your bizarre position on this is that you are an anthropogenic climate change skeptic. Is this true? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

...and if it is? ATren (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If Wikidemon turns out to be an AGW skeptic, I shall have no choice but to use my superpowers to direct all of the Sun's rays to his location. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What's an anthropogenic climate change skeptic? Perhaps I just own some invetment property in Antarctica and want the world to be warmer. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone who disagrees with the scientific evidence that the actions of humanity have contributed to a more-rapid-than-normal sequence of global warming, leading to climate change. This differs from a climate change denier, who just wants to pretend it isn't true so their property in Antarctica can yield a reasonable ROI :) -- Scjessey (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

On an episode of Mythbusters, they confirmed that a higher concentration of carbon dioxide leads to higher temperatures. I believe that our burning of fossil fuels is making the atmosphere warmer. However, I oppose reducing our use of energy, and instead, I want the U.S. to adopt France's policy of getting almost all of its electricity from nuclear power, and I also favor a switch to 100% electric cars. The idea of putting caps on energy usage is scary, because it would reduce our freedom, and our standard of living. I find it interesting that even though the new Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactor was designed in the U.S., the first ones being built are being built in China. In order to solve global warming, we need nuclear power, not scaremongering and energy rationing. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately I think we'll need geostationary solar-collecting satellites but that will take a while. I kind of like Stewart Brand's notion of triggering more Mount Pinotubo-style volcanic events. One a year would create a cooling effect that would offset the carbon-based warning and buy us another 100 years while we develop some better technologies. He's also in favor of nuclear power, and trying to convince his environmentalist buddies to support it too as the lesser of two evils. My favorite pet project is to harvest the earth's rotational energy. There's enough kinetic energy in the planet's rotation to last us hundred of millions of years. It's like getting tidal energy, from the source. I haven't yet been able to work through a good way to harness energy from planetary drag though, much less the climactic and plate tectonic effects. Maybe we could slow down a different planet and beam the energy back here. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear power is not going to solve everything, particularly as it carries its own pollution price and can (potentially) be a serious danger. Renewable energy from solar, wind, wave, hydro and geothermal are really the only viable options for the next few decades. Electric cars are a waste of effort, because all they do is move the pollution around. We need to use less energy, more efficiently. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

People still want electricity when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. When wind farms in Germany aren't working due to lack of wind, Germany imports its electricity from France's nuclear power plants. Hydro power is great, but it's limited based on geography. According to CBS News, nuclear power gives France the cleanest air in the industrialized world, and the cheapest electricity in Europe. I am not aware of even one person ever dying as a result from exposure to radiation from France's nuclear power plants. Chernobyl was a huge disaster, but that nuclear power plant didn't have containment walls, and it was being operated by people who were trained to run a coal power plant, and had no training in nuclear power plants, because the bureaucrats didn't think it made any difference. When done properly, as in France, nuclear power is very clean and very safe. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, in France, more people have died from protesting against nuclear power, than have died from exposure to the radiation created by nuclear power. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The sun is always shining in outer space. Always-on and standby power is more valuable, typically. You can fire up the coal plants as-needed. Nuclear plants can't be started and stopped quickly. My main concern there is practical, not theoretical. Theoretically nuclear waste is so small and concentrated we can put it all in one place and sequester it forever at relatively low cost. Damage from mining and dependence on unreliable sources is an issue, but not nearly as much as oil and coal. The practical problem is that we need to rely on current governments and companies, and their competitors and enemies, not to mess things up for hundreds of years through neglect, accident, sabotage, war, terrorism, bankruptcy, loss of technical expertise, etc. That's a tall order given how much people tend to mess things up. With coal, we know we're messing things up. With nuclear, it's a guess. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As Lyndon LaRouche used to say, "more people died in the back of Ted Kennedy's car than Three Mile Island". They just don't make climate change skeptic / nuclear enthusiasts like they used to. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with nuclear power comes with what to do with spent nuclear fuel. Even after reprocessing, the fuel is lethally dangerous. Some countries bury their waste (out of sight, out of mind) while others just toss it into the sea. Until a way can be made for spent nuclear fuel to be safe enough to eat, it should be used sparingly. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Some people would say that a small amount of very dangerous waste is better than a huge amount of slightly toxic waste. That's the principle behind water treatment, right? In theory, caring for a thousand cubic yards of extremely dangerous stuff for the next 500 years would be manageable and not very expensive compared to the value of the power. Certainly cheaper than running a maximum security prison where the inmates are sentient and actively trying to escape. The pyramids have held their mummies for thousands of years. Certainly with today's technology we can design containers to hold reprocessed spent nuclear fuel rods for a thousand. My comment is that you can't trust people to do things right with graft, corruption, sabotage, terrorism, incompetence, etc. There's also the real possibility that human society could suffer a technological / economic slide to the point where we lack the resources or know-how to manage the waste. I think that's all a real concern, you just have to weigh it against the risks and costs of global warming on the one hand, and the effects and practicality of a reduced standard of living on the other (after all the economically advantageous means of improving efficiency have been exhausted). - Wikidemon (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Tree Worm!!!

Merry Christmas Tree Worm!!! Grundle2600 (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think. It's cute and spooky at the same time! - Wikidemon (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Grundle2600 (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

False sockpuppet claim.

Please visit my talkpage, and answer for my question! Don't run away! Thanks!Róbert Gida (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)