User talk:Шизомби

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello Шизомби, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Extraordinary Machine 23:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Illuminatus! Trilogy

everything in the article needs to be expanded:

more about publishing history of original novels individually. article doesnt say when it was first published.
more from the mouths of wilson and shea about their thoughts on the novels, how they collaborated in writing it, why they chose their weird narrative styles etc
more criticism, literary and popular, about the trilogy, who liked it, who hated it, and why, has its popularity and influence declined or increased over the years?
plot needs a going-over - should be much more detailed than it is (its why i came to the article in the first place, to find a simple expln. of the complex story).
plot details could be wrong - were the nazis gonna be reawakened after all the festival-goers were killed, or were they supposed to kill the festival-goers?
themes must be greatly expanded - all the atlantis stuff, the submarine, the heavy numerology references, the dillinger dying words etc are barely mentioned
significance of titles are not mentioned.
how did its earn its reputation? i keep seeing it mentioned as a counter-culture post-modern classic, but who said it? why is it so popular and still in print today?
what about the millions of things influenced by it? like The KLF. what about the thousands of things its influenced by, like H.P. Lovecraft?

actually, theres so much i'll stick the above on the talk page too.... Zzzzz

where are you getting your release history info from? i'm wondering cos i dont see your changes on the locusmag or isfdb pages, and it doesnt match up with the covers with years displayed at http://www.rawilsonfans.com/images/book-covers/fiction/index.html can you add it as a source? Zzzzz 18:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's a cool page. I own some copies of the individuals volumes, but additional ISBNs came from abebooks.com.

do you own the 1975 usa dell editions? otherwise i dont think abebooks is a more reliable source than isfdb and locus (its just a second-hand book market right?). so can i put back the original isbns? also why did you remove the reference to Dell being a Random House imprint?Zzzzz 20:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides a reprinting of the Dell omnibus, at hand I have Laurel's Oct 1980 1st printing of The Eye in the Pyramid, Dell's Nov 1975 1st and Jan 1976 2nd printing of Leviathan. I have a couple more copies but I'm having trouble finding them (I have a lot of books and they're disorganized). Laurel Leaf Books was a Dell Publishing Co. imprint. I took out the Random House info that I had added because while Dell is at present an imprint of RH, I doubted if it was in 1975 - see Doubleday. Also a couple of the ISBNs you had were longer than usual...? Abebooks allows various bookstores to sell through them; the ISBN information thus comes from several sources. From info there it appears Sphere may have had editions published in the 1970s. Schizombie 20:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i guess the next task is to expand the plot summary somehow (see comment in peer review "the trilogy as it stands seems a bit tame"). hope you can help with that, as i barely remember any details at all... as you seem to know the details well, i'm wondering if you could put a pgraph or 2 about the use of numerology in the "themes" section as well? law of fives, 23 (numerology) etc. i have a feeling this could be a featured article with just a bit more work! cheers. Zzzzz 09:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

added reference to disinfo article about wilson criticizing (steve jackson presumably) games exploitation of illuminatus. anything to help expand the article is v. useful (especially the plot summary!). i want to put this one on WP:FAC soon. Zzzzz 21:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i took it off GA as per your comment. 23:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

thx for all your help & contribs... i'm ready to go with WP:FAC now, unless you have any concerns? just tell me go or no-go. cheers. Zzzzz 20:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what did you mean " page number for FU's self-awareness at the end" - you mean when FU realizes he's one of the narrators of the book? if so, its right near the end p509:

"It's the truth," Hagbard said calmly. "I can fool the rest of you, but I can't fool the

reader. FUCKUP has been working all morning, correlating all the data on this caper and its historical roots, and I programmed him to put it in the form of a novel for easy reading. Considering what a 'lousy job he does at poetry, I suppose it will be a high- camp novel, intentionally or unintentionally." (So, at last, I learn my identity, in parentheses, as George lost his in parentheses. It all balances.) "That's one more deception," Joe said. "FUCKUP may be writing" all this, in one sense, but in a higher sense there's a being, or beings, outside our entire universe, writing this. Our universe is inside their book, whoever they are. They're the Secret Chiefs, and I can see why this is low camp, now. All their messages are symbolic and allegorical, because the truth can't be coded into simple declarative sentences, but their previous communications have been taken literally. This time they're using a symbolism so absurd that nobody can take it at face value. I, for one, certainly won't. That thing can't eat us because it doesn't exist—and because we don't exist either. They're nothing to worry about." He sat down calmly. Zzzzz 10:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the illuminatus article is now up for "featured article" status. please go to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Illuminatus! Trilogy to vote Support or Oppose with your comments. cheers. Zzzzz 17:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think its supposed to be there 5 days, and any actionable objections must be addressed for it to become featured. its annoying that those who objected dont come back & comment on the fixes done to address their issues though.

Math of Quran

Thanks for your useful advice, I have improved this article based on your advice. Please check it, I need to add more info. If you think there is anything that needs to be added please tell me. (Mystic 10:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I appreciate that you're making the effort, though it still needs work - particularly to be understood by somebody who hadn't heard of it before. The title of the page might be better Numerological studies of the Qur'an. If all of the information on the page originates with the one book cited, you might consider renaming the page Quran: The Final Testament (book) along the lines of The Bible Code (book).

The Ringess noted on the talk page for the article that the introduction needs more context. The computer (what computer, what software?) didn't find this on its own; I'm supposing it was Rashad Khalifa who put the numbers in and ran them? Also, it doesn't explain why he picked 19 rather than any of the other numbers in the Quran. I would guess that if other numbers would run, patterns would be found too; the question for many people would be whether those patterns are intentional or accidental, and in either case whether they're significant or not.

Also the quote from Gardner is disingenuous. In his column, Gardner had the fictional pseudoscientist character Dr. Matrix say "It's an ingenious study of the Koran," which was his way of poking some fun at the study. Gardner can be very sarcastic. Schizombie 21:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Schizombie thanks for your valuable comments again.. I see you have removed my reference to Gardner in the page.. Why do you think he is being sarcastic.. please discuss this on the talk page of the article talk:Math of Quran, I am adding it back till some consensus is reached. Thanks again for your interest and efforts in making this article more understandable and resourceful.
Since the article has been deleted, my reply:

How many people besides me have a copy of this article lying around?

The article is "Mathematical Games: Dr. Matrix, like Mr. Holmes, comes to an untimely and mysterious end" by Martin Gardner, and begins with a quote from an "anonymous ballad": "The sons of the prophet are brave men and bold,/And quite unaccustomed to fear,/But the bravest by far in the ranks of the Shah/Was Abdul Abulbul Amir." The first sentence reads "Going through my files on Dr. Irving Joshua Matrix, the greatest numerologist in the world, I find notes on many escapades that I have not yet written about in his peripatetic career." In the first paragraph he goes on to describe some of this fictional character's achievements: "I have never told about Dr. Matrix' revival in Bombay of phrenology, which he cleverly combined with the ancient Hindu technique of acupuncture (a method quite different from that of the Chinese). Nor have I disclosed details about his notorious Parisian brothel for dogs and cats, where the madam was a large red-haired chow from Hong Kong, and pets were given free numerological readings on Saturday." "Perhaps someday I shall recount these odd episodes, but this month I must with a heavy heart speak of my visit with the wily old charlatan last April in Istanbul."

"Ingenious" appears on page 22 of the article, after Dr. Matrix tosses Gardner a copy of Number 19: A Numerical Miracle in the Koran.: "'It's an ingenious study of the Koran,' said Dr. Matrix, 'but it could have been more impressive if Khalifa had consulted me before he wrote it'" (emphasis mine). Gardner's account of Matrix' exploits ends as he describes how Matrix was evidently undercover as a Muslim named Abdul Abulbul Amir working for the CIA and apparently died in a shoot-out with a Russian agent.

Now, I think people unfamiliar with Gardner ought to be able to gather from even that much that Gardner was not calling Khalifa's work ingenious, and that he was being sarcastic. Gardner is a serious person, but he is also given to using humor at times, and particularly sarcasm. I understand that some people can be blind to sarcasm, and that understanding of sarcasm can be cultural (and no, I'm not being sarcastic by mentioning that). Gardner, besides having written for Scientific American about mathematics is also a noted skeptic and member of CSICOP. Even if the sarcasm is missed, the fact that it is Gardner's fictional pseudoscientist character who says that Khalifa's work is ingenious and not Gardner who says it is hard to miss. In the WP article on Matrix it states Gardner invented him "partly to provide colorful context to mathematical puzzles and curiosities, partly as a satire of various pseudo-scientific theories." Do you have the article, or did someone give you that quote out of context? I see that the page http://www.submission.org/miracle-history.html mentions this column without mentioning Matrix. Very dishonest of them.

Regrettably, I never met Gardner, but I had read his columns in the Skeptical Inquirer (SI) for many years (he's since retired from a regular column) and his books. He writes about odd things like Fletcherism and makes fun of them. Garder later wrote a two-part article in 1997 in which Khalifa came up again, his column "Notes of a Fringe Watcher" in SI. The first paragraph contains: "it is not hard to understand how the faithful could imagine that their divinely inspired text would contain hidden mathematical structures proving the book's supernatural origins" (emphasis added). I haven't turned up the issue that the second part was in; he only starts describing Khalifa at the end of the first, after Louis Farrakhan. I'll keep looking for it, or go to the library if I have to in order to make it clear what he thought of Khalifa and his work. Schizombie 08:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, just took the above submission.org page and went to Internet Archive - they've been making that claim that Gardner found the 19 thing impressive at least since 1997. http://web.archive.org/web/19980612161837/http://www.submission.org/miracle-history.html That's really a really bold lie on their part, since it's so easily proven a lie. Schizombie 09:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, one of his books on Amazon.com has the out-of-context "It's an ingenious study of the Koran" quote listed as an editorial review from Scientific American. I wonder if it might even have actually been printed on the back cover of or inside the book... I wonder if SA could sue for misrepresentation? Шизомби

List of notable Muslim reports - or whatever it's called

Yes, that's a truly horribly article. It didn't get deleted because the inclusionists voted against deletion. Inclusionists tend to believe that almost any article could be salvaged, with enough work, and will vote to keep even in areas about which they know little. Deletionists are more ruthless. The Little-Endians and Big-Endians of WP :)

However, there's one advantage to keeping the article. It keeps Striver busy. When he's busy, he doesn't attack high-profile articles. No user is likely to look it up, so it's just off in its own little eddy, Striver's corner. He loves having his own world where he's in control.

Of course it's just pointless to have the article, when the MSA hadith-search is online [1], and when Striver is listing only hadith of interest to the Shi'a, under the names that Shi'a use for them.

I believe that sooner or later all that Strivercruft is going to get deleted; it may just take years. Zora 09:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

hey -- WP style is that the first letter must be capitalized (and if it's not, the software does so), and the rest of the title is case-sensitive. Thus iPod and IPod both refer to the same page, and it's a different page than ipod and Ipod. For more detail, see [| here]. bikeable (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sniglets

Ahhhhh you said the magic words! Yes yes pleeeaaase provide direct references to a few choice sniglets from the "official" sniglets books. I've been waiting a long time for someone who actually had the books to come along. It would be outstanding if you could put some into the article. (Enthusiastic enough for you? ;-) ) JDoorj a m Talk 15:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Please comment on my rfc Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 21:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will, and I don't think it was inappropriate for you to have notified me of it since you did quote me after all, though that said I may mention that you did. However, I knew an RFC on you was coming since Striver had in effect announced his attentions in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad: The Messenger of God (book), and anyone who saw that could have surmised this was coming as well as I. Esquizombi 22:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double vote

Indeed, there was some sort of an error on my part. Thanks for letting me know. Pecher ^Talk 20:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thanks for your comment. Bro, you cant expect me to have perfect native english grammar, not even "true" enlish people are always capable of that, and it shouldent surprise you that a Iraninan/Swedish guy doesn't master the language.

I mean, how many Shi'a editors do you see here around? We are 200 000 000, and you only see me and Zereshk. Zereshk masters english (by my standard), but he is busy with the Iraninan articles, so im basicly the only active representative of 200 000 000 people. Try to judge me by that standard.

Being the only guy in the scale, i would judge that i am the best of them all (all one that is.).

I dont say that to imply that i should be given a green card to mess up articles, and let them remained messed up. Rather, try thinking it as i bring views and information that would not be here otherwise. Sure, i dont do that in a perfect way, maybe not even in a good way, by your standards, but im all you get from the Shi'a point of view.

All other Shi'a editors that have visited wikipedia have succumed to the heavy opposion they have meet, im the only one not giving up. Doesnt that make you wonder why?

Thing is, i perceive many editors just as biased and heavy pov pushers as they see me. Many times when people accuse me of being a pov pusher, you can bet that the feeling is mutual.

When judging my contribution to wikipedia, dont only look at what i do wrong, also look at what i do right, even though i admit it is easier to see what i do wrong. --Striver 01:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penny...

It was merged. Then it was re-created. If you look at AFD, there are more then "keep" & "delete" as choices. I think the person who closed made an error however. This is a clear case of no-censenus to me. I still think they should be merged... maybe I'll do a mass merge-vote at some latter date. ---J.Smith 20:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

re. Kids Eat Free

I am fully aware of proposed deletion and use it often while new pages patrolling. The above mentioned article was not suitable for this process, despite its triviality, because it had previously been through the prod process and was 'deprodded' by User:Kappa. Once this has taken place, the article will not be deleted:

If the template was removed and replaced, the article will not be deleted. (from What this process is NOT for, WP:PROD proposed policy page).

As it didn't fit into any of the speedy categories, the only route left open to get rid of this "trivial" article was AfD. Thank you. Hynca-Hooley 23:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted and reverted the comment because I was momentarily confused by the difference between the name signed to your comment on my userpage (Esquizombie) and the username displayed here. Apologies.

Qadianism

I created this page to discuss Qadianism from Muslim perspective. This page caused me to get 3RR and banned due to constant modifications by Qadianis/Ahmadis. Since then it has been extensively modified by Qadianis/Ahmadis group to became a copy of the Ahmadi page. Please do not merge with Ahmadi page since they do not like to add criticism in that page and this page was created to serve this purpose. I will contribute to change the content of that page in the future.

Siddiqui 03:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Yes, you are correct. I thought of the two as fairly similar which is why I put it down but WP:V is more accurate.--Jersey Devil 05:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended Percaution

It is more of like something that falls within two of those terms. Mubah means something is permissible and Makruh means something that is disliked. Recommended percaution means it is permissible to do so, yet it would be better not to do. On a scale, it would probably read as, Halal, Mustahab, Mubah, Recommended percaution, Makruh, Haram. Yes, the scholars do use these terms, though I'm hesitant to say so about the "recommended percaution" without knowing the arabic term. Pepsidrinka 21:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also "obligatory precautuin", and i dont think it have the meaning Pepsidrinka suggested. I dont know the areabic. Ill try to remeber your advice. You, on the other hand, should try to read this and this. --Striver 23:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, i alway try to add a stub template when i create them, i am familiar with that. Or am i deluding myself, do you have a example of a article did not bring a stub template, a link and a short explenation?--Striver 00:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Suras" Al-Wilaya and Nurain

You are right. There is no need to have the tag. I removed it. Actually, I added the tag when I first saw the article I think. Thanks for the link btw. Regards, --Aminz 09:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfc

Please comment on my Rfc. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 02:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reply from Smith03

Hi the gentleman ran for president under a differenet political party we do not have "fusion" in Minnesota. For that reason I removed him you can not run for office for one party and be a member of another Smith03 18:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Also in 2004, Thomas Harens, a member of the party, formed his own Christian Freedom Party and ran in the 2004 presidential election in Minnesota."

Also it really has little to do with the party and more of do with the indivual

Smith03 18:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon

This particular IP resolves to a school. That means the person who was warned on March 17th may not be the person who's vandalizing today. That's why it's imperative that the person be warned while they're vandalizing. The person vandalizing today may not have seen that warning, particularly with an IP that's dynamic. That's why the instructions at WP:ANV say to ensure that the person was warned on the same day in which the vandalism occurred. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This person has made precisely one edit today. The proper response is to warn them, today. If they vandalize again, warn them again. If they vandalize again, report it to AIV and they'll be blocked. But don't report someone after they've only made one vandalizing edit; it's just not enough to block a dynamic IP over because either a) they didn't see the warning, or b) they saw the warning and stopped. Either way no reason to block. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Casandra Stark

I added some references to the article, I don't know if it's enough to change your vote. I have the book Deathtripping but haven't located it yet... lots of books, not so well organized. Esquizombi 13:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have added my revised opinion to the article's AfD talk page, as requested. Regards, (aeropagitica) 14:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suck at spelling

It was supposed to be "astoundingly" -_- Maybe punjabifire will get to those other 2 eventually. Though I agree those are probably the more notable and would have been a better starting place. I wish I could clean up the articles more but I don't really know a whole lot about this subject and don't know too much where to find more info on it. Lyo 12:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Havn't read the novel. But I'm going to work on getting a copy of it to read. I'd been meaning to do that anyway Lyo 13:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Im tired of geting my stuff deleted, so i dont even bother anymore, just create them with the AFD sign on it and get it over with. --Striver 02:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty funny. SkeenaR 04:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheen

I dont argue that the arguement is more sound only since Sheen said it, im saying that arguements now reache a unprecedented large amount of audience: The mainstream media. That is historical in the view of the 9/11 movement, nothing can compare to the number of people Sheen reached with those interviews!

I mean, how relevant is the Bahrain Grand Prix to most people? I dont care s*** about it, but im sure it has a huge significance to those in that field. Try to see it in that perspecive: How important is this to his group, and not to you. I can assure you that i would delete most of the articles of Wikipedia if notability to me was the criteria. --Striver 20:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SORRY I CALLED U A SILLY ON THE LINCOLN PAGE THINGIE!

I was silly!..please come to our trekweb board anytime for a fun chat!

http://trekweb.com/stbbs/showThread.php?bid=FldwoPP0qETo2&tid=44256932dc7d0&cid=44256932e15f4 (Cathytreks 04:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

you're wrong

These categories are for both former and current parties and movements as long as they've had a significant impact on mainstream U.S. history. The "parties" category used to be only for defunct parties, but that has changed now to a certain extent, and as for the movements one, that was just created and my impression is that the concensus is it can include both former and current groupings.

Can you believe this?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-Muslim interactants with Muslims during Muhammad's era--Jersey Devil 16:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Clifton DeBerry

See this[2]. Bronks

Soggy biscuit

Hallo- I noticed that you posted a 'Delete' vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soggy biscuit (2). I have recently posted some new material that I feel satisfies the requirement for WP:N and WP:V- hopefully you may feel the same. In any event, best wishes and apologies for the intrusion. Badgerpatrol 20:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamiat-e Islami and Jamiat Islami

Thanks for the note. It looks like you've done the best you can with the information available. Certainly, the latter page needed a serious editing down; it was highly personalised and largely speculative. It does look like the page has also had some unwanted interest, so it might want watching (I've added both pages to my watchlist, but I'm not qualified to edit them for content). Hopefully the talk page enquiry you made will yield some help. Good luck. -Splash^talk 22:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Sorry, my bad. Didn't realize that not only are they interchangeable, but that some editors are using "Further reading" more often than "External links." --mtz206 01:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to correct spelling errors

But the reason for the change was to bring the comment in line with wikipedia policy. For great justice. 03:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The meme "policy"

Yes indeed, nice one. Less than stunned to notice it had been withdrawn... Cheers, Deizio 11:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soggy biscuit

That ref is for the statement 'the spirit of adolescent sexual exploration associated by many (at least in the UK) with public schools'- I didn't feel there needed to be a ref for 'not necessarily associated with homosexuality', since it's clear from the definition that the game is not just restricted to practising homosexuals (although I suppose it could be argued that it primarily is) and need not involve mutual masturbation. The book is not just about soggy biscuit per se, but rather a general collection of reminisences re public school buggery, homosexuality, masturbation etc. Note that the article is still a work in progress- it still needs verification in places, I intend to add this, although I'm quite busy at the moment (and I'm reluctant to spend hours sourcing a not-particularly exciting article that may be deleted in the next few days). Let me know if you have any other queries or ideas, and thanks for the interest! Badgerpatrol 14:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't take it personally at all! I fully appreciate the value of constructive criticism, that's entirely what wiki is all about! I'm sorry if my responses came across as overly combative, that was not my intention. As for your specific suggestion- I have already added no-wiki comments within the body of the article requesting more sources and pointing out where I feel the article could be strengthened. I suppose it may be acceptable to mirror these on the talk page, although I sometimes suspect it's better to keep them in the text, e.g. cite tags or masked comments. On a more specific point- I notice that you mention attending a public school in your reply- you are aware that the meaning of public school in the US is antithetic to the term as used in the UK? If not, that may clarify some issues. All the best, Badgerpatrol 16:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo again- it is already specifically mentioned that the activity is associated in parts of the popular consciousness with public schools (sensu British and Commonwealth English), as I think we may have discussed earlier. The term is also wikified, by way of clarification. As for leaving comments on the talk page- go for it! I usually think that it is better to weave these sorts of things into the text, since a long list of requests for info and clarification often elicits a particular response (ie 'do it yourself!' or similar) and non-specific requests can lead to confusion and an all-round weaker article. I also earlier specifically tagged the fact that I had left masked comments to interested parties on the SB AfD 2 page. If you have particular requests for clarification, then feel free to outline them for other editors on the SB Talk page. All the best, Badgerpatrol 18:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks, I'm glad that my hard work on that book article was well-received. I've had a lot of positive comments - if only all the other 9/11 conspiro-cruft could be handled like that :-/ As for the discussion above, I think you have the wrong end of the stick about "public school" - means snobby high-class boarding school in Commonwealth English, not at all the same thing as public school in the USA. And the Commonwealth public school has long been notorious for its particular adolescent sexual subcultures, which is where soggy biscuit fits in. I don't know if the U.S. equivalents of British/Australian public schools have the same reputation for sexual subcultures, but a lot of British humour relies upon it, which is possibly one of the reasons British comedy is rather distinctive (the public schools are the breeding ground for a huge proportion of British comedians and comic writers - Stephen Fry among them - and I doubt there is quite the same phenomenon in the States). If you are "public school" educated in the States, it is safe to assume you are two worlds away from being "public school" educated in the sense being described in the soggy biscuit article! TheGrappler 21:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I missed your reply on badger's talk page. I guess the term isn't currency in the States. Great work on that Bowman article - now, if only someone could take on 9/11 conspiracy theories in the same way... TheGrappler 21:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previously a lot of the references were inline. The whole thing is a mess. I actually can't find a lot of common conspiracy theories there (I have been trying to find a WP reference to the story of a 14 year old Pakistani boy looking out of his school window and saying that the towers won't be there tomorrow... primarily because it's one of the daft urban legends that Bulow mentioned in that book and I wanted to give it as an example of his use of unverified urban legends. It's an especially famous urban legend (Mark Steyn has claimed that at least one U.S. journalist was sacked for reporting it) and there has been some debate as to its truth (I believe it has been refuted) but I can't find it on WP - I think it deserves one, but I don't feel like I want to add to the conspiracy-cruft! TheGrappler 22:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Crimes Commission

Sorry, but I don't think an Afd page is the appropriate place for a political debate. My point on the Afd page is that Wikipedia says that we shouldn't use the encyclopedia for propaganda or soapboxing. If you want to debate the political merits of the notion of a Bush Crimes Commission, I would be glad to do that here or on the article's talk page. Also, just because we don't see eye-to-eye politically doesn't mean that we can't get along -- I wish you the best on Wikipedia, and welcome you to the fray. Hope we cross paths again. Cheers. Morton devonshire 01:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And here I play nice and all, and you complain about me without talking to me first. My interest is in combating POV, not promoting it. I'm sure you would agree with me in that goal. Thanks. Morton devonshire 19:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AN:I Fake Incident Reporter

Oh, we had a few strange situations in the last week or so where a user would, with his first edit, report an 'edit war' on a non-existant page, involving non-existant editors. Very odd. --InShaneee 18:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

afd

I see now that i was incorrect. Thanks for correcting me. --Striver 01:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

I think you definitely need to review Wikipedia's no personal attacks policies. My vote in that Afd was in no way more hostile or unsettling than a number of others there and you need to know that I don't have to give any reason for my vote. Let's not see you do this kind of thing again.[3]--MONGO 02:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, I am an Administrator and I know when I see a personal attack...ranging from the original title of the subheading: "MONGO behavior unbecoming an admin" and further comments such as "perhaps that sort of behavior ", "derogatory POV way", and "("administrators are just regular editors with a few extra buttons") and they can behave just as badly as a regular editor"...are indications to me that you are labeling my actions as bad behavior, when there wasn't any, and is therefore a personal attack. You must not do many votes for deletions for I have seen admins and others simply unload. I expect an apology....and next time, if you have a problem...just ask...don't go around someone and try to make them look bad on a noticeboard just because they are honest and straight up with a comment they make on an Afd or elsewhere. I can see no reason that my vote was left open to interpretation...I voted "delete"...was anything else I said in the comments a twist on words to the vote...hardly. I think you need to think this over carefully, and don't tell me I am being confrontational...I am suppose to confront someone when they are violating policy.--MONGO 02:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...just remember...I have been around a while and I will also heed your comment that I need to be precise in my votes for deletion. I will attempt to be less harsh, shall we say...happy editing.--MONGO 03:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cleveland Steamer

I've left Wikipedia, but I had to check back on the Cleveland steamer controversy, which is why I left. I didn't want to keep working on an encyclopedia for an organization that ignores its own policies like WP:OR and WP:V and WP:WINAD in order to keep jokes that a number of editors and admins find funny. Anyway, I noticed that you cited a post on alt.sex from 1995 by some guy calling himself "Gaius Valerius Catullus." Well, I was that guy, and I posted that eleven years ago while I was going to school at Dartmouth College. I used to post to USENET under that name and fake email address to avoid getting emails and also because I was a classics major and really liked Catullus. Wouldn't it be a horrible twist of fate if I, the one who took Cleveland steamer to its second AfD, was partially responsible for propagating its definition? I feel like a tragic hero who realizes too late the folly of his youth. Brian G. Crawford 02:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that can't have been you? How strange! Шизомби 03:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Love-shyness

I wonder if any have any suggestions about how to address the tone/cleanup on this article? I made some additions to it, and hacked at the list of attributes to reduce that in size (although it keeps growing back like kudzu) and suggested on the talk page that those attributes be sourced. Admittedly, I've made no effort to source them yet myself. Any thoughts would be welcome though, thanks. Шизомби 22:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you are requesting my help on the subject. I do not think I can be of any help for you. Why not try Wikipedia:Requests for comment? Stifle (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you had tagged the article, so I hoped you might be able to identify some of the problems that motivated you to tag it. RFC is only if there's a problem of consensus, I thought? Шизомби 23:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I think the article is far better than when I tagged it 2 months ago and I have removed the inappropriate tone tag. RFC can be used when there's a lack of consensus, or just to get an outside opinion on articles, but I don't think it's needed here. You will probably need to leave it on your watchlist to make sure that the lists don't overgrow. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Policy on Removing Afd Tags

Alight, so User:RWR8189 removed an Afd tag from the Democratic Underground page. What happened is that User:Zoraida put it up for deletion out of anger that one of the pages he made, Progressive Independent, was put up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic Underground), a clear violation of WP:POINT. I think that RWR removing the tag was likely proper protocol in light of the circumstances but I can't find specific Wikipedia policy stating that Afd tags can be removed if the Afd is made entirely to make a point (or vice versa). Is there any specific Wikipedia policy that states this? I am asking because the said user is being called out on it in his talk page User talk:RWR8189#Removing AfD notices. The problem has turned into a huge mess with hordes of meatpuppets from an nn politcal forum flooding this afd with "keep" votes.--Jersey Devil 06:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae

Thanks for your continuing help, suggestions, and research in fine tuning the above article. I've worked fairly diligently on it, and Zzzzz has very nicely made it a featured article candidate. If you think the article is fine as is, would you be willing to vote your support for it as a featured article? If you believe it still needs some work, please continue making suggestions for improvement. Thanks. Hal Raglan 21:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

I though you might know how people make maps like or ? Is there some Wikipedia tool to make these maps or do people just use their software programs to make the maps?--Jersey Devil 23:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by User:24.165.120.221

I first spotted the unhelpful interpolations by this user when they edited Love, but chose to go with Template:Test-self because they did actually make a good faith effort to remove their edit to Exxon Valdez oil spill previously. I don't generally like jumping straight to a higher warning because I think it's fair to give someone the benefit of the doubt, especially when they've received no warnings prior to this one, and the edits themselves don't seem to be particularly malicious. This editor isn't moving very fast anyway, so I don't think there's a need to block unless they continue their editing in this fashion. Also, hail Eris! Ziggurat 02:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep votes

As I read the speedy keep policy, a vote under criterion 4 may be made even when there are prior delete votes, unless the prior votes specifically address the criterion 4 issues. In the case you mention, the prior votes didn't, so a speedy keep vote is appropriate. Monicasdude 16:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rec for Deletion

Thanks for your comment. You note consensus there was also that a nomination for AfD is treated as a delete recommendation even if it does not explicitly say delete. Since a prod is a recommendation to delete, moving a prodded article to AfD is simply an extension of that process, so i am simply moving articles where I think the original prod may have a point. Sometimes I agree although not all the time; the point of AfD is to derive consensus. (I have likely made some errors in moving articles that were almost certainly properly deprodded such as this one [4] and others where I might myself have deprodded, but which warrant further discussion such as [5] ). But a prod is a recommendation to delete, so moving them to AfD is simply a step in that process and as a result my "nomination" is secondary, at least as I see it. Eusebeus 17:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Afterthought: (I know that souds a bit semantic) :@[reply]

Are you interested in being an admin?

If my radical deletionist name wouldn't taint the discussion, I'd be willing to nominate you to be an admin. You're reasonable and honest, rare qualities here. By the way, thanks for taking the time to leave a message on the page of that person that reverted my edit to Blumpkin. I'm in the middle of a Wikipedia burnout, and I probably wouldn't have been at all kind. One of my pet peeves is people throwing around the term "vandal" when they don't like an edit. Brian G. Crawford 01:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Porn star notability

If you recall or discussion from a month or so ago, we talked briefly about notability for porn stars. Thus, I wanted to bring this draft I wrote to your attention: notability of pornographic actors and actresses. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 22:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Horror

I've noticed your edits to horror-related articles. Dmoon1 and I are thinking of starting a Horror WikiProject. Would you be interested in helping with something like this? Please see User:Myleslong/WikiProject Horror for a temporary project page. Thanks for your time. --Myles Long 19:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Republican sex scandals

When you changed your vote you created a new vote further down the list, this is confusing for closing admins, if you wouldn't mind moving your current vote under your old vote to make this clear it would be great. Ans e ll 23:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Gatekeepers"

I was reminded of the batte in the Gatekeepers article with HK when I saw this. (From a thread on a nn political forum that tried to use meatpuppetry to keep it's page from being deleted) The graphic depicting how the left-wing media is controlled is especially amusing. [6]--Jersey Devil 06:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian fetish

Hi Schizombie, please do not hesitate to add any references which you have found to the Asian fetish article! I notice that you have suggested on the talk pagequite a few good references explaining some points of view that are not currently in the article, but have not inserted any of them into the article yet. --Wzhao553 06:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

Yeah, I fixed it up as best I could.--Jersey Devil 02:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]