User talk:FloNight

Talk archives

Archives 1 2 3 4

---

Words

What is one to make of a life given

to putting things into words,

saying them, writing them down?

Is there a world beyond words?

There is. But don't start, don't

go on about the tree unqualified,

standing in light that shines

to time's end beyond its summoning

name. Don't praise the speechless

starlight, the unspeakable dawn.

Just stop.

Well, we can stop,

for a while, if we try hard enough,

if we are lucky. We can sit still,

keep silent, let the phoebe, the sycamore,

the river, the stone call themselves

by whatever they call themselves, their own

sounds, their own silences; and thus

may know for a moment the nearness

of the world, its vastness,

its vast variousness, far and near,

which only silence knows. And then

we must call all things by name

out of the silence again to be with us,

or die of namelessness.

— Wendell Berry

Strikes again

Hi FloNight...

...this Batman2005 person has hit me again.

He is complaining that I didn't follow my own complaint of using "Discussion", but to me "Discussion" means being used BEFORE you make the change--NOT AFTER--which he did not do.

I really am not looking for a battle--compare my contributions to his--but I could use any assistance/advice you can provide.

Thanks so much!!! trezjr 10:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, anyway.

Thanks, anway. I'll try to reason, but am not optimistic about the end. I will just leave the page to him. Can I consult you in the future? trezjr 22:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)}

Mccready re-block

Cross-posting from my talk page: Hi Flo, I agree with your reblocking Mccready and your plan (as stated on his talk page) to pursue RFAr if he continues as he has. Having worked with him for several months off and on at acupuncture, I sense that he's an intelligent and well-intentioned guy, but so certain he's right that he's alienating others. Refusal to collaborate is a big no-no, and not everyone who opposes his edits is an extremist as he'd like to believe. Lately he seems impervious to the requests of numerous editors to change his approach, so I think you've done the right thing. (I also strongly applaud your compassionate initial response of unblocking him, and you were right to then draw the line once he blew the chance.) Thanks and all the best to you, Jim Butler^(talk) 23:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ashland Community and Technical College

I poked around your user contributions and came across Ashland Community and Technical College. I take it you are from the Ashland, Kentucky region or keep up with the local news? I am unsure if ACTC still offers any bachelor degrees. I added a listing of their associates, but I am unclear on much about the college since it went out of UK's hands.

BTW, thank you for the IPUser block. We will all breathe a little easier tonight not having to deal with that user's edits! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the BS offered was in Nursing, but looking back at their page, its not listed anymore as that. I'm not for sure if they decided to just have the students transfer to an in-state college to complete a BS or go to Marshall. It's been about a year or two since I have last heard of that.

A bit of trivia I may try and find the source for later: Ashland was very close to having a full-fledged state university back in the 1920's (IIRC, 1923). Failed by one vote.

As for the IP edit, we were civil in providing dicsussions, approperiate links why his statements were not warranted (e.g. no citations, original research, weasel words). It was when he began trolling through my user contribution list (or my user page since they are both list my contributions) and began adding to numerous articles (without contributing much else) was when red flags were raised. His last edits were regarding Louisville, Kentucky and some mention of the Fort Knox region being part of Elizabethtown. Despite a discussion (which downgraded quite fast with yet another "admin" threat), he continued to readd the affected statement before (I assume) going to bed.

We'll include in the edit summary of any fuutre edits, if they are unconstructive or do not add value to the content, "See discussion and explain why his statement(s) were removed. This should clearify up some points. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

BLP

You said there are BLP warning templates, and that they could be found on the BLP talk page. But I looked there and didn't find them. Maybe you could help me out here? Dansiman 03:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I see them there now, must have been a browser cache issue. Dansiman 03:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

SCOTM

File:Chemistry-stub.png

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Month, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is . You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name!

NCurse _work 06:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Mccready (talk · contribs)

I think Mccready (talk · contribs) is understanding now that he mustn't lose his temper with the pro-quackery trolls, even if they gang up on him to try to control an article. He may have been a little forthright but his willingness to try to uphold WP:NPOV in the face of aggressive trolls should be applauded even if his execution was a little awkward. People (inc, btw, the arbcom) are far too willing to try to settle disputes on behaviour rather than content. He needs to be encouraged to WP:CITE and discuss properly, but the best way to do that is IMHO not to give him reason to think that it is him against the world, that WP is infested with quacks and trolls who are too eagerly supported by short-sighted admins. Besides which, if you are against him, you need to give him enough rope -- if I am wrong he will hang himself. — Dunc|☺ 10:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just out of interest, do I count as a pro-quackery troll? Or Fyslee? I think the chiropractic Talk page deserves very serious attention from the community, not as an example of pro-quackery trolling, but as an outstanding example of conscientious collaborative editing according to WP principles, and incidentally that offers several examples of how disruptive editors can be "brought into the fold" by relentless civility and patience. I would like you to look at it; it's an article that I think is approaching FA class. I am not anonymous, so feel free to look me up. Gleng 12:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Dunc, FWIW, I strongly prefer discussing on content, both in terms of scientific research[1] and WP policy[2][3]. But ad hominem ("pro-quackery troll" etc.) is always a good fallback for those uncomfortable on such ground... cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 18:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

So what do we do now? There are about twenty people supporting this 30-day ban which you have requested here. I find it very telling that those who are in support of this ban are not just those who disagree with McCready's POV of pseudoscience. People who share his POV are going out of their way now to say "Don't help us!" and "Your tactics are doing us more harm than good!" Anyhow, I appreciate your diligence on this matter. Thanks. Levine2112 00:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures

You may find this useful. --Tony Sidaway 21:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As new clerks I'm sure you're eager to get to work. I've summarised the current status of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Administration#Pending_cases. --Tony Sidaway 16:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the Ericsaindon2 arbitration. Seeing you do this really does make me feel like I can relax a bit. --Tony Sidaway 05:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Biography subject responds

Hi...you might want to read the Discussion page for actor Michael Oliver at Talk:Michael Oliver (actor), just to be apprised at what is being said/claimed and asked for. trezjr 10:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Request assessment

Hi FloNight... ...I've added the name of Michael Oliver (actor) to the assessment request list having tried to rescue this piece from vandals at the request of the person writen about.

...just in case you have any time free.

trezjr 16:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

oops...this was supposed to go to User talk:Plange; sorry!!!

Thanks for semi-protecting Matthew Bates

However, one of the vandals has been around for a while and has reverted the page again. I've mentioned it on WP:ANI but thought as you protected the page, I'd let you know too. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Violation Of ArbCom's Ruling

FloNight, Andries is violating Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba. After this ruling, he re-inserted the link to his pesonal Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba website on his userpage Ref. Andries claimed he was going to request mediation to resolve the issue of including a defamatory Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba website on Robert Priddy's page Ref. Instead of filing a request for mediation, he re-inserted the defamatory and critical link that is not Robert Priddy's homepage (his homepage is already listed there: Ref. He refuses to listen and someone needs to talk to him. Thank you. SSS108 ^talk-email 14:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I re-inserted the link as per WP:EL "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if there is one." Robert Priddy has several homepages that should all be linked to. I will request Wikipedia:mediation for this article. Andries 16:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert Priddy has one homepage and 3 Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba websites. These are not his official homepages. Also, the ArbCom specifically said that these negative, critical websites that relate negative personal stories and contain original research against Sathya Sai Baba are not allowed: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba SSS108 ^talk-email 17:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, a person can have several homepages. E.g. one professional and one personal. Andries 17:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The link you are wanting to include in the article is not a personal homepage. It is an Anti-Sai Site that is defamatory, critical of Sathya Sai Baba and contains original research and negative personal stories. That site is all about Sathya Sai Baba. It is not about Robert Priddy. SSS108 ^talk-

email 17:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are famous enough to have your own Wikipedia article then you can include all your homepages filled with slander of and ad hominem attacks on me, Robert Priddy, Sanjay Dadlani and others in the external link section. Andries 17:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert Priddy is not famous. His article is a stub and will never proceed beyond one because he is wholly un-notable. The only reason he started his own Wiki-page was to promote his agenda against Sathya Sai Baba. That is why you defend him. You do the same thing. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a somewhat different dispute that is also due to different interpretations of the arbcom ruling [4] It will be clear that I think that linking to a webpage with a copy of a reputable source is perfectly okay. Andries 17:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue on the Prema Sai Baba wikipedia article is not any different. Andries is promoting his Anti-Sai Site by attempting to include a reference that was taken from a Yahoo Group! A Yahoo Group is not a reliable or reputable source. Once again, Andries is attempting to duplicate information onto Anti-Sai Sites to push his Anti-Guru/Cult/SSB agenda on Wikipedia. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It it just a copy of a reputable source. Andries 17:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Cite the reputable source without linking it to an Anti-Sai Site. Do tell us why you insist on linking it to an Anti-Sai site? SSS108 ^talk-email 17:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, convenience links are convention in Wikipedia and highly recommended. I cannot find this information on another website. Andries 17:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That is why you can't link to it. It has not been sourced to a reliable or reputable reference. It is convenient for you to push your Anti-Sai agenda by unremittingly attempting to promote your Anti-Sai Site. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the ArbCom should revise the recently granted amnesty (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Amnesty) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Jossie, the problem with that is that I am only one person. There are 3 known Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba activists who are active on Wikipedia:

• Andries (talk · contribs) (Former Webmaster and current "Main Representative, Contact and Supervisor" for the largest Anti-SSB website on the world-wide-web).
• Robert Priddy — aka ProEdits (talk · contribs) aka 84.208.99.96 (talk · contribs) aka 80.111.21.76 (talk · contribs) (Webmaster for 3 Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba websites and webmaster for the second largest Anti-SSB website on the world-wide-web).
• 145.53.1.234 (talk · contribs) (Reinier Van Der Sandt: Current Webmaster for the largest Anti-SSB website on the world-wide-web).

If Andries and I are prevented from editing the Sathya Sai Baba articles, you can be certain that Andries group of Anti-Sai Activists will begin to take over where he left off. It's already begun Ref. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

These people are already covered in the ArbCom ruling Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Removal_of_poorly_sourced_negative_information (my highlight): "Negative information in an article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed without discussion. The three revert rule shall not apply to such removal. This includes links to critical websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of negative experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role." ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The ruling excludes external links used for references. Andries 16:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Andries, if you are so familiar with the ruling, why do you continue to solicit external links that go to a critical website that you are personally affiliated with Ref? This was already discussed here. Even though Flonight has not yet given a response (it appears she is travelling at the moment), you went ahead and merged the article and re-inserted the Anti-SSB link to a website you are personally affiliated with, in violation of ArbCom's ruling. This proves you are pushing your bias on Wikipedia and implies you are incapable of a rational discussion and obtaining a consensus before pushing your agenda. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of the arbcom ruling. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Proposed_decision#External_links_to_be_avoided References to reputable sources are okay as external links. Andries 17:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing the proposed decisions with The Final Decisions. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken, Andries. The caveat on the proposed decision was that "If one has or is involved with a website that can be considered a reliable source, it can and should be used as a reference. For instance, if am an editor at the Journal of American History, I should not be banned from referencing that journal." I would argue that detractor's sites and personal sites are not reliable sources for anything. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Jossi, you are mistaken the webpage that I linked to is a copy of a reliable source which is perfectly okay. Andries 18:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, Nope. The caveat by Simonp, was very clear: "This case seems far more to be a matter of using unreliable references rather than a matter of link spamming."In addition, as the site is a partisan site, the "convenience link" is only convenient to those that want to assert a certain POV. If the source is reliable, cite the source, period. The ruling in this case is very clear: don't link. Continue with this and you are surey to get dinged. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree. The webpage linked to is a copy of a reliable source. I do not see the problem. The reference is reliable. You can replace the link to another link with the same contents. Andries 18:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Andries, why are you insistent there be a link? You already said there isn't another link. Futhermore, the link you want to include comes from your Anti-Sai Website and was taken from a Yahoo Group! I will wait for others to weigh in. I think you are making a wonderful case for me regarding your bias and Anti-Sai agenda. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

An alternative that is acceptable to me would be to make the citation longer. This has the same net effect as a convenience link i.e. that the interested reader can read more. Andries 18:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to do so. If the source is reliable, it can be accessed at a public library if someone wants to verify it. You can use a short cite as per fair use guidelines of WP. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree, the object of a convenience link is to enable among others to verify the contents and to enable him/her to read more if s/he is interested. A giant citation will do the same as a convenience link. Andries 18:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You can disagree all you want. The policy of WP:V does not speak of "convenience links". Adding a link is always an option. In this case, as the material is hosted in a partisan website, and in accordance to the ArbCom ruling, it should be avoided. A long citation will have the undesirable effect of expanding the article to an inconvenient size, and it is ridiculous, IMO. No other articles use such long citations. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation but I continue to disagree with your interpretation of the arbcom ruling and your statement and using long citations as an alternative to convenience links. Andries 18:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Andries, correct me if I am wrong, but you are citing the proposed decisions. You are not citing the final decisions. You are citing a proposed decision upon which all ArbCom members did not reach consensus. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If the citation is legthened, then I will have to inevitably include the section where it talks about Sathya Sai Baba's ability to perform a large variety of miracles. I have the references sitting right in front of me. Of course, this would be "just for convenience". SSS108 ^talk-email 18:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please also see History Tab For Robert Priddy. Andries essentially filed a bogus mediation request in which he failed to inform anyone about. The other users in the request for mediation have been inactive on that page for a long time. Andries is reverting the article despite filing the request for mediation. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've issued a warning to Andries [5]. Hopefully this will resolve the matter. --Tony Sidaway 19:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What did I do wrong?

Flo. All I did was introduce cite materials here with the honest intention of elaborating on the Dominionist POV from their perspective. [6] Now FeloniousMonk and his friends have decided to pick another edit war with me. I also copyedited some paragraphs that I thought were terrible grammatically, and the term "Progressive", for example, is a loaded term that is POV, insinuating those of us who believe in traditional religion are somehow backwards. I replaced it with Liberal, which I thought was a more neutral term. I'm a bit confused with what I did wrong here.--Pravknight 21:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Pravknight

Since you've taken him under your wing I'll let you deal with this. Today at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pravknight he made a attempt to imply there's support for his activities by placing his response directly above endorsements of the summary he's replying to, making it look like the endorsements were of his reply: [7] Some are calling for his blocking over this stunt, and taken with his ongoing disruption and tendentious editing, I'm inclined to agree, but I'll defer to you in this case. FeloniousMonk 00:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000

Thanks! --Tony Sidaway 11:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. The /Workshop subpage is a bit short on instructions so I thought I'd ask you. Please consider this a formal request and if needs be, copy it to the appropriate section. I'd like to request a temporary injunction preventing User:SpinyNorman from editing Honda S2000 while the arbitration case is in motion, and from reverting the article without discussion (and the consensus of other editors) once the case is closed. Zunaid 08:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Werdna

I can only speak for myself, but I've always found Werdna to be kind, intelligent and courteous. I don't know why he banned you from #wikipedia, but I can't remember having taken issue with one of his actions as a chanop before; banning a respected administrator without cause would be out of character. I also think you might be being a bit unfair about the last RfA; many people piled on voting against him there because a couple of people opposed over a comment which I actually thought was diplomatic in the circumstances. Rebecca 13:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise it before, but from your comments on my (now withdrawn) Request for adminship, it's clear that you think I bear a grudge against you of some description, or vice versa. I don't know why you think either way, but I'd like to let you know that I don't hold a grudge against you — I've just been unfortunate enough to be on the opposite side of a number of conflicts to you. I'd like to work out any issues you and I might have, so we can move beyond the issues on my requests for adminship. Also wondering if you could provide logs or something to do with the IRC incident you mentioned — I don't recall it and am mildly curious about how it happened. Thanks for your feedback on my RfA, and looking forward to your response here, I'm watchlisting your user talk page — Werdna talk criticism 06:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Glad that you want to discuss your RFA. That was the reason that I contacted you on #wikipedia. I've already had a discussion with Simetrical about his RFA. Let's let the dust settle a bit; I'll contact you on IRC in a few weeks. For now know that I agree with Kim Bruning comments to you about consensus and civility and think that Crum375 and Newyorkbrad comments should be helpful to you as well. Take care, FloNight aka Poore5 on IRC and other places on the internet.

Ah, thanks for clearing up who you were. I apologise for banning you from the channel — I saw a user speaking to me in private message, without a cloak, with an unrecognised nick, and immediately accusing me of being rude in speaking about SlimVirgin without her present. I made the (false in this case) assumption that you were one of the many channel trolls who enjoy populating and disrupting our channel, and decided to kickban you in the channel in case you were going to flood the channel. I'm apologising for the rush to judgement here. Anyway, thanks for replying, — Werdna talk criticism 04:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Help

Could you please take a look at Mccready's edits today.Gleng 18:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Dwarf

Hi again! I hate to be a bother, but is there any way to make Dwarf semi-protected? It's vandalised every few days. Adam Cuerden 22:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind intent. Gleng 16:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks also for taking up the Mccready issue; I won't comment unless I think the facts are being seriously misrepresented, as it's probably better to hear cool outside views, if people can take the trouble to look closely at what has been happening. I think you've acted wholly correctly though, and see the problem exactly. Gleng 19:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Biography Newsletter September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 00:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV, a joke

I think Wikipedia's got to wake up here and either adhere to the neutral point of view or do the honest thing and come out of the closet as a Left of center POV site. Even scholars have begun taking note.

"Several users answered Wales’ injunctions with skepticism. Making what in mass communication research is known as a “framing” argument (Scheufele, 1999), they suggested that formal neutrality need not be violated for an article to be biased. They also pointed to the fact that even if individual articles are not biased content-wise, the Encyclopedia as a whole can still display subtler nuances of bias. For example, some pointed on the NPOV discussion page to the fact that a simple preponderance of articles describing concepts or ideas aligned with a specific ideology would naturalize that ideology at the expense of others even if the articles were perfectly neutral in tone. Or, focusing on the failings or negative aspects of a topic at the expense of its positive facets would also be a type of bias. This systemic bias appeared to some to emerge on Wikipedia not only statically, through the initial choices made by the early or active users to cover certain topics, but also dynamically, through the process by which topics are pruned out or rewritten during editing."[8]

I find it incredibly interesting how left of center POVs are somehow neutral. That's a definite contradiction in terms. Wikipedia's low level of credibility in journalism, reasearch, etc., can be traced to the fact cliques of editors control certain articles or groups of articles to ensure only their POVs survive. As far as I am concerned, I have done nothing wrong here, and if Wikipedia really is nothing more than a Left-wing version of FreeRepublic, it needs to be honest with its readers and not pretend to be neutral.--Pravknight 05:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you like this ACW task force "Userbox"?

new ACW task force Userbox!

Fix Bayonets! 13:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Kehrli

My understanding when there is a conflict between two alternate proposals that pass is that the one with the most net first choices is used. In this case, both 2 and 2.1 have the same net totals. Though I don't think I've come across this problem before, I think the fairest interpretation here is to pass 2, since it has one more total support. I doubt any arbitrators will make a fuss over this. In the other case, 1.1 is the clear winner with more net first choices. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 16:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella

Thank you for the notice. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin question

I've noticed conversations concerning User:Gleng. Have you considered asking him if he would consider an administration position. This editor is too valuable to be lost. His edits are excellent and his demeanor is above reproach. I would ask him, but don't feel qualified. --Dematt 22:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

you've got to be kidding. This user's almost sole activity on WP is chiro. You are a chiro. check out this bullying edit of his [9] -- Mccready

Flonight, you are welcome to read the chiropractic article. Please make your comments as I would appreciate your input. Thanks for you time. --Dematt 15:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dematt here. Gleng, like many editors of the chiropractic article, is chiropractic skeptic. Yet, he always edits and discusses edits in a manner which most cooperative with non chiropractic skeptics. McCready's accusations are unwarranted and untrue. Gleng edits on many articles other than chiropractic. McCready's example is Gleng reverting yet another one of McCready's undiscussed major revision which now has lead to yet another major disruption caused by McCready. I was hoping that this 30-day ban would have some effect on McCready. Apparently, he is choosing to ignore it. Levine2112 17:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I still haven't seen any ban that can be considered effective. When is it going to happen? -- Fyslee 20:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Gleng has also been great on pseudoscience. WP is fortunate to have editors like him. --Jim Butler^(talk) 14:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

pseduoscientists have strong foothold in WP

Re your community ban on me (your interpretation of the "community". Take out the self confessed chiros and acus and how many supports have you left? This is an organised attack from the usual suspects. I'm surprised that you are so gullible. My edits on the pseudoscience page itself have been good and no one has said otherwise. In fact I've been congratulated - even by the usual suspects. My use of popups has been explained many times, but once again - I'm on a very slow dialup connection and it saves several minutes. To make it clear again: How many supports are not chiros or acus? What then is the balance. This says a lot about the immaturity of WP. I await your response. You have my email address but proceeded to try me in absentia. Charming. Mccready 14:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Flo. Please see my response to Mccready on his Talk page.

Like most scientists am sparing with the term "pseudoscience" because it is both offensively perjorative and irredeemably imprecise. My resource is PubMed, this vast repository of the scientific literature spanning all disciplines and many languages, in all this trove only 71 articles even use the word, of these only 11 are reviews [10], and mostly concern the historical debates about now rejected areas of science. Scientists deal with the merits of arguments, case by case; they do not categorise by prejudice, either arguments or those who make them; to call something a pseudoscience or someone a pseudoscientist are either gratuitous insults or they are serious charges, worthy of close and careful argument, of meticulous rigor and precision, to justify what might be seen as a libel.Gleng 15:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Flo

Hey Flo, thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I really appreciate your support and your comments. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

September Esperanza Newsletter

For your reading pleasure, the newest Esperanza newsletter can be found at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter. —Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, Freakofnurture, and Titoxd 04:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Quick technical question

On the motion in the Arbcom case, there are currently 9 active Arbs (none recused), which makes the majority 5. The current vote is 5-1; is this a majority? David | Talk 11:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Asking for your opinion on/review of something

I remembered from your RfA that you were a member of a Wikiproject concerning pedophilia on Wikipedia. As I recalled, you also had kids, so I headed over to your userpage to confirm. I thought, given your perspective as a mother and as someone with apparently some knowledge of how pedophiles work, you might be able to give your input on a new policy proposal. Not having children myself (though I would like to), I thought it might be a good idea to solicit the input of someone whose opinion I value and with a better perspective on the issue. Am I completely off-base? Does the policy help correct the problems I think it helps correct? Captainktainer * Talk 20:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

67.1.121.5

This IP has been determined to be FourthAve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is currently banned for 1 year per this ruling. Because of his evasion, his ban timer should be reset to one year after his most recent edit from this IP, and the evasion recorded under "logs of blocks and bans" as well as his user page.

You have the job from hell!

D'you know Flo, I would loose my licence if ever I made a comment like that in a British or Italian official enquiry. Still think I'm paranoid? Giano 18:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom Clerk task

FloNight: Since you were the Clerk who closed the St Christopher's case, I think you are probably the logical person to update the note about a pending ArbCom case at the top of Talk:St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine. I'd do it myself, but don't want to be accused of some form of tampering, as there are various sensitivities associated with that article. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ben Savage vandalism.

Hi...you said contact you if I ran into any problems, so, guess what, here I am!!!

This user, User:Kcansur721, and others have been vandalizing the Ben Savage page with persistent death claims for the past week.

It is already semi-protected.

Can you, please, just keep an eye on these parties doing the damage.

I've been trying to clean up the page.

Thanks!!!

trezjr 01:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

St Christopher arbitration

>>Hello :-) I updated the message at the top of the article talk page. [11]Is this what you were after me to do? FloNight 01:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)<<

Generically, exactly, although I'm not sure whether "single-purpose accounts are restrained" in bold at the top of the page is a little too confrontational for this group as opposed to just a link to the arbitration page. Or maybe the link just gets deleted when the case is over. You might want to ask Tony Sidaway or one of the other clerks what's the standard procedure for cases revolving around individual articles (as opposed to a particular user's conduct). Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Flo, I think we need S-Protect[12], and your famous magic wand may not be enough this time ;^) Crum375 22:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This has now degenerated into a series of legal threats on the talk page (the most serious and concrete of which have been reverted but are visible near the top of the history). I've alerted Guy who has been the admin most active in dealing with this situation up to this point, but this may also call for a referral to the Office. Newyorkbrad 23:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Flo, thanks for the S-P; but should you also add the S-P template? Crum375 01:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Marsden Arb

I dropped a block on Arthur Ellis today as noted on the RFAR:Rachel Marsden talk page. Don't know if you want to make it a clerk note on the main page or not. Twelve hours shouldn't interefere with the case presentation but if youthink it's not appropriate at this time you can unblock. See also WP:AE. Thatcher131 19:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be fine. Arbs will check the log of the other case. I'm more concerned about his behavior. While the new case is open he has no motivation to go away. FloNight 20:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You know...

You are a real cunt. 205.188.116.6 02:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)