User talk:The Land

Thanks for the tip. -User:ShadowyCaballero

Why add a "No claim of notability" to my R.A. Dvorsky creation literally 5 seconds after I created the page??? Obviously more detail is to follow!

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 19:01, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for your edits on economics and game theory. There aren't all that many regulars with econ background, so it's always nice to see another. Isomorphic 03:08, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ta. Will probably be around there a bit more (no mention of general equilibrium on the Economics page????) and in politics stuff as well. Only found Wikipedia on Monday and I'm already an addict! The Land 11:03, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Howdy, The Land. I've added in that redirect for "councils" you wanted. Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Councils&action=edit&redirect=no to see how it's done, or have a look at the "redirects" bit of Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page. TB 12:22, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Loverly - thanks - will avoid being so sloppy in future The Land 12:24, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Land

Why should we be beggars with the ballot in our hand? God made the land for the people! Gerry Lynch 12:16, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Indeed! Hurray for Georgism! Matthew Platts 14:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested in this

I've just created The Land (song). Perhaps you might be able to add to it? Matthew Platts 14:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

About the Fifth World Council (5WC)

I'll have you note that Cesidian law is not my own legal system if there are over 200 people who have accepted it, not to mention that your own computer follows the same law naturally...

In addition, I'll have you note that among the members of the 5WC are also 2 real and registered international organisations, one registered intentional community, one Australian cooperative, and an American organisation. As John Lennon once sung, "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one..."

Also, the fact that my nation (TTF-Bucksfan), and other Fifth World self-defined micronations are virtual entities, does not in itself make them non-noteable. Amazon.com and Google.com are also largely virtual, but nobody says they are not real or non-notable.

I would ask you to go to the Fifth World Council's website, and do a little background research, before you single-handedly and arbitrarily exclude its existence from the Wikipedia. I'm not going to fight with you on this, because I'm too busy with my nation, my organisation, and my own problems to do so, but if you think your will, not God's, is going to win in the end, I can assure you that you are very mistaken. --IndigoGenius 15:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Closing AFD

A reminder: {{oldafdfull}} goes on the article's talk page, not the article itself. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion process for more information. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Just twigged that ;-) - Thanks! The Land 09:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Great work spotting nonsense articles. But, if it is patent nonsense, or meets one of the other 'speedy delete' criteria {WP:CSD), could you tag it as {{nonsense}} or {{db|give whatever reason}} or even just {{d}}, instead of sending it to afd? You'll find it a lot less effort - and it saves work for others too. Thanks. --Doc (?) 16:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Military dolphins

Hey, Sorry, I didn't realise we were editing that page at the same time. Still:

Well, I included it on the basis of an article in the UK Independent newspaper. You are probably right that it's nonsense - but I'd prefer the article to cover it.

My point was that it is covered in the U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program article, which I think is the right place for it, since that's what it's referring to. Also, the fact that the indie and many other papers, TV stations, etc. have covered this doesn't give it any additional credence, because they're all just quoting the Observer article, which in turn comes from Leo Sheridan. Wide coverage doesn't give a story weight if all the coverage can be traced back to a single source who doesn't provide a shred of evidence for his clearly wacky claims. It does merit a response, which is why there is a response in the NMMP page. — Johantheghost 14:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Calton

Sorry, it's my given name. --Calton | Talk 23:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

High Kings

The Annals of the Four Masters is the main source of the mythical/legendary/semi-legendary history of the Irish people and kingship.

It can be found rendered online at http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/T100005A/

Regards --JohnArmagh 19:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Esperanza Spam

Hello Esperanzians! A few announcements.

The Advisory Committee election results are in. In tranch A are Acetic Acid and Flcelloguy. In tranch B are Ryan Norton and Bratsche.

My other annoouncement is that our founder, JCarriker, has founded Esperanza's sister project, Wikipediology. I have written two essays here (my name is Matt Binder). My essays are under Teenage Wikipedians and Anon Editors.

On behalf of myself and Jay Carriker and the other wikipediologists, I would appreciate it if you were to join.

Cheers Esperanza! Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 23:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

coercive monopoly

Thank god somebody else grasps this "coercive monopoly" thing. Or, I should say thank you for taking the effort. (RJII)

"...continuing to argue with him [ User:RJII ] will not solve anything except making both of you more angry." You may be right (although I'm not angry, just kind of exhausted). I keep hoping that he will come around and participate in a reasonable discussion: seriously, what's the alternative? We have to reach a compromise and a consensus, don't we? I don't really see any other avenue to that other than to continue reaching out to him. The only other alternative I see is for everyone else to give up any attempt at creating a NPOV article and stop editing completely (which was what had happened prior to the page being protected: everyone had more or less given up and abandoned the article to RJII). That's no good for anyone, Wikipedia least of all. So we have to keep trying to reach a compromise with him. Sooner or later, he'll come around. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 17:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I no longer believe that he'll come around, but I am at a loss. I have no idea what else to do. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 16:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

coercive monopoly survey

Jossi Fresco suggested a survey as the next step to break past the deadlock on coercive monopoly. I am posting this message to all of the editors who have attempted to contribute to this article in the past few months. I hope that you will find the time to participate in the coercive monopoly survey. Thank you for your time. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 23:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Now RJII is deliberately disrupting the discussion, scrambling up responses so that the thread of the discussion is completely lost.[1] Can I get a show of hands on who would support a complaint at this point? I have really, really tried to avoid this, but I don't see any other alternative at this point. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 18:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Sorry about how your RfA went; as it says on the tin, editcountitis can be fatal. :( I'd be happy to nominate you a bit further down the line, when you'll be innoculated against it. :) Rd232 ^talk 18:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I too am sorry. Just stick around, build up a good edit history, and you'll make it down the road someday. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 13:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Johann Wolfgang's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA. If my RfA passes I will use my new abilities with the common interest in mind. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ] 16:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to drop you a note of thanks for your response to my RfA. I really appreciate the comments. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Dispute on WP:GRFA

I've set the ball rolling for a WP:RFC survey to start, discussion is on the GRFA talk page. Please comment. Borisblue 04:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Age

Thank you for the apology. I removed age as a criteria for my nominating someone (not voting for or against someone) about a month ago. I realized it was in error, especially when juxtaposed with a comment I made that people who vote on edit counts are off base. I said something along the lines of that a person at 1999 edits not having the qualities needed to be an admin while at 2000 they suddenly do is absurd. It's equally absurd that a person of 24 years 364 days would be someone I'm not comfortable nominating while someone 24 years and 365 days is. The clock strikes midnight and suddenly they're golden? I was wrong. The rest of my standards for nominating (not voting) take care of any issues that might come about because of immaturity. Some people age 10 are more mature than some people aged 50. My actual voting standards are really pretty low. I'd quite happily vote for someone with 200 edits if I otherwise thought them worthy. Have a look at my comments on Wikiwoohoo's RfA, who had 147 edits at time of his first nomination. --Durin 16:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

RE Fuddlemark RfA

Hi Land, Yeah, it dawned on me while I was having lunch. This wikibreak I'm taking is getting the bad side of me, since I've been only reverting vandalism on my watchlist and by the time I read those comments my joke detector was off. Oh well, I guess making a fool of myself for once cannot hurt anybody. Right?

Anyway, thanks for the heads up.

Best, -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 14:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Nick Vaughan

I don't think this should be AfD'ed, I think you should remove it. Quentin Pierce 19:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Remove the AfD completely. The person is notable, but instead just let the AfD take its course, who am I to decide whats good or bad for wikipedia. Quentin Pierce 19:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Mark's RfA

Thanks for your support. I'm kinda befuddled, still, so looks like you succeeded :-). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi The Land,

I would like to thank you for your kind support on my RfA. I'll do my best to be a good administrator. If you need anything, or if I ever do something wrong with my new powers, please contact me. Mushroom 16:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The article was protected after discussion with Jimmy Wales, given the contentious nature of the article, and the upcoming CNN interview about it. Danny 18:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm an admin now!!

Thanks a ton for your support to me and to Durin's beard on my RfA. The final tally was 50-0-0 and I assure you that I'll work to the best of my ability in upholding the integrity of Wikipedia. --Gurubrahma 11:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Do not...

..WP:DNFT. -Splash^talk 13:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet Another RFA Thank You Note to clutter up your talk page...

The Land:

Just wanted to drop you a note to thank you for your vote of support in my recent RFA. I will attempt to utilize my knowledge of online communities in a manner that benefits Wikipedia.

All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 13:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It's Looking Good on Your RFA

Too Soon? Yeah Right!

I thought i'd congratulate you early. Good job, my friend. karmafist 02:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Notability/WP:Importance

I have often seen notability used as a reason for deletion. Please supply me with evidence that this is not a reason to delete.--File Éireann 19:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

what are you doing with Bogdanov Affair?

your edits to Bogdanov Affair and Talk:Bogdanov Affair are curious. why didn't you just revert the vandalism? it almost appeared, at first glance, that you were taking part in the vandalism. it all just looks odd. r b-j 16:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the reply. i didn't understand all of it, but at least i am convinced you are not a bogdanov sock-pupppet doing vandalism to an article that is unflattering to them. r b-j 18:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Esperanza elections

File:Voting box clipart.gif

Hi The Land: This is a quick note just to let you know that there's an election under way at Esperanza. If you'd like to become a candidate for Administrator General or the Advisory Council, just add your name here by 15 December 2005. Voting begins at 12:00UTC on 16 December.

You've received this spam because you signed up for it here. To stop the spam, pop over and remove yourself and you'll never hear from Esperanza again!

➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 05:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Congrats, use it wisely. silsor 06:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, congratulations! --Whouk (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I just saw in the Signpost that you've become an admin. I'm glad to hear it. I'll know you'll do well. Congratulations. -Willmcw 10:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Take a look?

Can you take a look at speedy Big Gay Bear, esp the history? I don't want to get stuck with a 3RR, though I really doubt it would apply to me. Thanks.

Oh. And congrats. --Elliskev 21:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, that was a definite speedy candidate, now deleted. :-) The Land 21:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

In the spirit of Wikipedia, I support getting a consensus on AfD, but you seem to forgotten to put up a new vote on that page.

Did you simply intend to link to the vote records as a way of promoting debate? If that's the case, I think you should have done so on the discussion page.--Aleron235 22:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed the listing with a new AfD page. The Land 22:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Joe's RfA Thanks

Thank you for your kind support on my successful RfA! If you are in need of support, my door is always open to you (and anyone else who may need a sympathetic ear). Regards, Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 04:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for supporting my RfA. The final tally was a fantastic 22/4/1. Deltabeignet 23:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi The Land, now that I'm an administrator, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Cyber Law

Hi, I get into places, get very enthusiastic, and I hope I do not go overboard or out of bounds. I have now been trying to help out with the Cyberlaw project ... you can see my presence on the talk pages of the project, of most of the student groups, and I added a little bit to the project itself. Also where some of them had posted stuff & left off the 4 tildes, I did an attribution fix, then tried to do a helpful reminder on their talk pages about that. Where I found a student group had already learned that technique, I supplied tips for them going a step further on what can be done. User:AlMac|^(talk) 07:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I plan to post this to the talk pages of the two administrators helping out with the project: +sj + and The Land User talk:The Land. Since I been burned a few times stepping on toes with different views than mine about what's appropriate, I have become a little less bold, and stated stuff on Talk pages before some input, giving folks a chance to encourage me, or say No. Acting on Sj guidance, I went ahead and made some comments on the various student group user pages, to try to help them out, and also on the Harvard site. (here I am there.)

I request that you first visit Wikipedia:Wikiproject Cyberlaw, noting the links I placed under Teams and Participants, and also in Structure, Note that Frontleft has added a couple of images. I have doubts that there has been a correct statement of copyright permission from Harvard students to Wikipedia. This may be a test to find out how soon WP finds out that there is a copyright problem, or it may be a student inexperienced in what needs to go on Image pages. User:AlMac|^(talk) 07:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Goods

Sorry about reverting your changes, but large changes like that really should be discussed first on the talk page, there is already some discussion there and some external links that directly contradict some of your changes, not that I dont think it could be improved! Martin 23:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Marginal Revolution

I'm not sure what possesed you to believe one of the most popular economics blogs is "not notable." The phrase "not notable" does not mean "not notable to The Land". It means "not notable to anyone but those involved" (BOCTAOE). If you are against any blogs what-so-ever then just say it. Some blogs really aren't notable. But this one is. --MShonle 02:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

AFD relistings

• LX/LuelinX (AfD discussion)
• Charlie Butt (AfD discussion)

Please don't do that. Just re-transclude the existing discussion page and leave the discussion open. Uncle G 21:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Fascist economics

PLEASE help with the dispute in this article. Do you recognise this as manipulative pseudo-intellectual propaganda, or is it just me? Thanks --sansvoix 22:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

AfD Superinflation

Is there a particular reason you wanted this deleted? If it looks underdone, I'm still working on it.

I replied to your comment on my talk page (I prefer to keep the conversation together) TimNelson 10:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Now I moved the entire discussion to the Discussion page for "Superinflation cycle", as I thought that's where it belonged TimNelson 10:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Some people just never learn...

Thanks for the revert and block of Broadmindedtwentysomething. We figured he might have given up, but I have a feeling this one's going to be a headache for some time to come yet... Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 19:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Rant of the day

Quit removing discussions on article discussion pages. This is a violation of wiki rules. If you think they are personal attacks...think again. Stating that people are engaging in ideological disputes is not a personal attack. You have, once again, a warped view of rules...but this is of course because you wish to abuse rules to get your prefrences achieved...as I've said the whole time. CUT IT OUT! (Gibby 16:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

Yawn. The Land 16:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Birmingham

This is just a reminder that the Birmingham meetup of UK Wikipedians that you have expressed an interst in is happening tomorrow. Sorry for the short notice. Thryduulf 15:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

My Homepage

Why are you deleting my homepage and leaving strange message on my User Talk page ? Cordially WritersCramp 22:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Because your statements were offensive; you're blocked btw. The Land 23:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Writer's Cramp

This guy User:WritersCramp is a Neo Nazi but he is obsessed with the English bulldog and keeps reverting my Bulldog edits.

Is he about to be banned for Nazi racism and anti gay policy?

Personal attacks right? Batzarro 10:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Accouting good

Why on earth have you redirected accounting good to economic good? I can understand wanting to merge the two articles, but you dont seem to have that intention, please ensure that you merge in all the information that will otherwise be lost. Also the article will need a new title, otherwise it is a bit misleading for someone who is looking for the accounting good article. Martin 22:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Now you have "merged" in global public good to public good by simply adding a single sentence? this is terrible. Martin 22:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone searchig for "accouting good" will not want to be redirected to "economic good", if you do want to merge them then the article will need a new title. Martin 22:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, accepted on global public good, but I think we should rename the Good (economics) article to something else, possibly Good (economics and accounting). any better suggestion? Martin 22:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Many thanks for supporting my RfA...

...but unfortunately it wasn't successful on this occasion, receiving seven support votes, seven oppose and seven neutral - about as balanced as it gets really. I appreciate your support and hope we get a chance to collaborate on something in the future. All the best, Jamyskis

Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 16:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Hi The Land, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Old VfD Discussions

You may want to know that an automated bot is currently responsible in making sure that 5-day-old VfD discussions are moved daily. Please avoid moving them yourself, as they may not have passed the 120 hours maturity period yet. Thanks! - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 12:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"Dispute"

Hi again. I wish to avoid seeing others blocked. I have never spoken to this person prior for him blocking me on account of anti-pedophilia views. Unlike some most, I have never wheel warred, but I urge you to reinstate the block to avoid any further friction for today. Thanks again. Regards, El_C 23:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That wouldn't be appropriate. Talk pages are the place to discuss this; disagreements are not helped by blocking one another. The Land

Thank you

Thank you for trying to defuse the situation tonight with that silly userbox and the ensuing fiasco.--Jimbo Wales 06:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

A request for arbitration where you have been listed as a party has been opened by Raul654 (per Jimbo Wales). Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, as well as provide evidence at /Evidence and comment on proposals at /Workshop. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)