User talk:172/archive 17

Shapiro Frankfurt School chart

I think you probably figured the matter out, since you removed your own comment from the Frankfurt School talk page. In brief: Jeremy Shapiro made a nice chart about interrelationships among Frankfurt School thinkers (and precursers, etc). An editor on the talk page felt it was undesirable to have a little blurb about "Created by J.Shapiro" within the graphic itself. I generally concur, but more important Jeremy Shapiro also concurred. So I edited the graphic itself, and uploaded a revised version. You partially need to look at the history/comments on the chart, not on the Frankfurt School page to figure out the change.

More recently--a day or two ago--someone took the entire chart out for some reason. I think it was an anon, and no real explanation was given. So I put it back in. Maybe my comment about removing the "created by" blurb was irrelevant; I had speculated that prior discussion might have been the reason the editor removed the whole chart. But who knows, maybe the latest removal was wholly unrelated to that. In any case, the chart is useful, as I commented (I might tweak it in a couple ways if I were to spend a lot of work, but certainly it is better to have than not have). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cold War

Yes, I'm familiar with that user. He is in the habit of using many usernames, and has begun using many IP addresses as well. I've blocked indefinitely some of the obvious sock puppets. If you can figure out if there has been a violation of abuse of the 3RR then I'll block the IPs involved for 24 hours. -Willmcw 04:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you can probably assume that any new user who you are not familiar with on Cold War is some variation of this user. Checking through this guy's edits he is more prolific, and uses more names, than I had realized. Fortunately, most of his edits are good but when they aren't his use of multiple identities becomes problematic. -Willmcw 04:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#155.84.57.253/24.0.91.81/Shran/et al.. It's a general alert to the community to try to guide this prolific editor away from the dark side. -Willmcw 07:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator nomination

Thanks so much for the encouragement 172. Although I have now decided to decline the nomination, it won't affect my helping around on Wikipedia. :-D — Insta ntnood 17:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. :-) — Insta ntnood 20:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I may refer to your statement "Too often a lot of people who follow the admin nomination page like making a big deal out of nothing, though" from User_talk:Instantnood#Nomination here, and if I interpret it correctly, I do have to remind you that an administrator is someone entrusted to exercise powers in reflecting communicty concensus, and is not a small deal. Therefore, nominations for and votes for admins is a solemn process which is by no means a small deal either. If the process has been given its due respect from the beginning, I would think the above chain of events would not have occured. If this may be a reminder, good works accorded to wikipedia is always welcome, but as it is so in the real world, all it takes is one fault, and all shall go to waste. That is a fact of life.--Huaiwei 16:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:172/Talk block 15

Should it be moved to user talk:172/Talk block 15 instead? Talk:172 is the talk page of 172, the year in the first century. — Insta ntnood 17:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should. Opps! You're more on top of things than I am. 172 | Talk 20:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:-D — Insta ntnood 20:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow this was forgotten about. I've moved it :) – Gurch 21:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Mertz

Hi 172: Since you just wrote me (and thank you so much for the kind words), I guess I'll ask a slight favor of you. For reasons mysterious, an editor seems to have created an account just to vandalize, or at least weirdly edit, the page about me (in my non-WP identity). Given the autobiography rule, I don't want to get into a revert war over that; but could you maybe take a glance at the page (and it's talk page). Thanks.

Acually, Jeremy Shapiro definitely deserves a WP page much more than I do; you may have seen I offered to write one on his talk page, but was waiting for him to send a few references. Maybe I'll go ahead and do that anyway; obviously whatever I included wouldn't be private info. But I figured he'd have more ready pointers. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To my fellow bristly editor :-)

I seem to have made some enemies at WP. I know I have a failing in being overly gruff (which perhaps you share *wink*). Anyway, for reasons I think are not well-founded, there is an AfD on my non-WP persona: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Mertz. Certainly, I'm not so notable as our friend Jeremy Shapiro, whom I still haven't gotten around to writing about (but I did create one on my colleague Alan Soble recently). Perhaps you'd like to opine at that vote. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Totalitarian dictators

Admins have a fair bit of latitude in deciding when there is consensus. I would suggest waiting a bit and then renominating it, and hope that a second opinion gets a different result. - SimonP 22:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears that you added the CfD tag, but did not create an entry in the CfD/Log list for today (the old vote still exists, but this should be a different one). However, I agree with SimonP that you should wait a while. Yeah, it's a terrible category; but if something stupid exists on WP for a week or two (or three), it won't kill us. After the initial vote has settled a bit, then would be a better time to renominate. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I saw what was going on from your edit summaries at a bunch of different pages on my watchlist. I then took a look at the discussion. I'm not sure what is to be done, since the CfD "failed." I suppose there's no rule that says we can't keep the category empty, though. john k 23:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kissinger proposed changes

hey not to keep bugging you about this kinda stuff but if you have time to check out my sandbox changes on that page's talk that'd be awesome. as well as FRAPH which was a while back. if not that's cool too. thanks J. Parker Stone 23:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terrorists

'nuf said.

Russian Constituent Assembly

Hi 172, notcied your a bit of an expert on Russian History. Could you take at look at the article about the Russian Constituent Assembly. Its bit of a mess now (half my fault!). Me and Ultramarine are disputing each others references to the point where 2 versions of history appear below the main article! TheInquisitor

Thanks spoken :)

Thanks for your thanks!! I am glad if it worked for now. I've had the same problem but never had the guts (or brains :) to move the boxes, so Thanks to you! - Introvert ^talk 02:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Linz

Perhaps, 172, you could write the missing Juan Linz article on WP, so that we can see what this fraemework he proposes is. I confess I don't know his work, since my doctorate is in social/political philosophy rather than political science or sociology (not that I don't sometimes read outside my field, but there are a lot of books in the world). I know you've referred to Linz at several points in the discussion of that awful category, but whatever analytic precision Linz may (or may not) have, it's not available to most Wikipedians. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polish-Muscovite War (1605-1618)

Glad to see you back. I'd appreciate comments on this article, I think it is close to FA status (just needs a map). I'd especially appreciate your input on the 'Modern legacy' section - I expected it would stirr up a heated discussions, but even after I asked for input on Russian noticeboard nobody seemed to mind it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. You know a lot more than I do on this topic, as I'm not an expert on cultural history, 17th century history, or Poland... I'll vote to support in the next couple of days. The "modern legacy" offers a good overview of the legacy of the war in cultural history; but I'd add paragraph or two on the implications of the balance of power issues settled in the war on the modern development of Eastern Europe. I'll try to write this myself, since this is the literature on the war that touches on what I work on. 172 | Talk 07:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forum for Encyclopedic Standards

Hi, I wonder if that thing is still active, or that it was just a good idea of the moment, and that it just was left ignored? I've learned it from your Arbitrator candidature(and I agree with everything you said there BTW). I had many ideas on that direction, about the standardization of the way of citing sources, the way articles should be written and partial protection of featured articles etc. Regards. Fadix 21:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration subpage

Hi. Each of the current candidates in the Arbitration Committee election now has a subpage for people to ask questions and have a discussion with the candidate. It's linked to below your statement on the candidate statements page. Hopefully, this format will be more productive and less disruptive than the "endorsements/disendorsements" approach that caused so many problems last year.

I took the liberty of copying your candidate statement unaltered to your subpage. Feel free to elaborate on it at whatever length you wish, without the concern of space restrictions as on the main candidate page. I encourage you to put your subpage on your watchlist and discuss arbitration issues with the community as part of your campaign. --Michael Snow 04:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to let you know that I left you a question on your Q and A subpage in case you haven't seen it yet. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive list on your userpage

This is a very useful series of elinks you have collected there. I think it deserves moving into mainspace. The articles on Academic publishing, List of scientific journals, List of journal search engines, Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Reliable sources are just some that would benefit from parts or all of this information, don't you think so? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I sometimes use it off Wiki when I don't have access to my favorites list on my internet browser... You have a good idea. It appears that someone else has already started the work at Wikipedia:Academic resources. 172 | Talk 09:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks interesting, tnx for the comment about it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fidel Castro article

Thanks for your interest in this article. Please be more careful, however, before suggesting a user may be a sockpuppet of another; if you examine the recent history of the article you will see that Saravask replaced the opening section that I and others had previously copyedited, which I then have spent time re-copyediting and wikifying. I also imagine you will find our IP addresses significantly different.

It seems there are now 'too many cooks' working on the article, so, as I have stated in Talk:Fidel Castro#Too many cooks, I will for the time being withdraw.

David Kernow 14:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have just seen and read Talk:Fidel Castro#My edit summary and the intro and appreciate your apology.
David Kernow 14:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding. I look forward to your input on the Castro article and other articles when you feel ready to reenter the discussion. 172 | Talk 14:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kissinger

thanks very much, though the External Links section'll need to be worked on by someone, heh. it's just that practically every link (IIRC) was about how terrible of a person Kissinger was. we probably don't need that many links in the first place.

if you have anything in my edit you think needs to be significantly changed or improved on i'm open to discuss it on the Talk, probably tomorrow though, cuz i gotta do a 5-page paper. Dr. Trey 22:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Re your request on ANI - I have removed the material from 'speedy deletions' the space there is for requesting the deletion of userspace not articles. If I can help any more, let me know. --Doc (?) 10:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Totalitarian dictators

Hi 172. Thanks for the message. I have been peripherally aware of the to-and-fro over the category; most of the relevant pages are on my watchlist. This was why I did something about it when I saw it turn up in the speedy category. Although I have some concerns about the original processology of extending a CfD and stuff, I don't feel moved to reverse my deletion, particularly as VfU is upholding it without too much trouble and there is also a perfectly decent stub now in place. It also was a speedy, given the eventualy state of the CfD. I'm still something of a new admin (about a month old), but I think I've averaged >1 deletion a week on VfU which, given the normal traffic there is quite a lot! So having another one listed is not too disturbing, especially since all the earlier ones were upheld. Thanks for the understanding, though. -Splash^talk 11:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfU

172, I've thought it right to remove my insertions of the <personal attack deleted> tags that Silverback's been complaining about. Of course I didn't put them there to bait him in the first place, but because I disapprove of silently altering things over another person's signature. And also to avoid turning some of your comments into replies to nothing. Unfortunately, with this removal, some of your comments are now replies to nothing. I apologize for not managing better, and please feel free to revert any edit of mine that you think unfair to you. Alternatively, you might consider removing some of your own words, I suppose. Please see the note I left on the VfU page. Bishonen | talk 12:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Quoting me is fine of course. I've endorsed the basis for the dispute, which I suppose means I should also put in something about trying and failing to solve the dispute (I reckon I did try, even if only on a small scale). I see you suggested El C endorse it, but I suppose it can be more than two people? Feel free to remove my sig if it doesn't go well in that place. I find the RfC instructions pretty mysterious. Bishonen | talk 19:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc Silverback

Do you think mediation would be a more congenial route to take? Has he further insulted you since I asked him to stop as I haven't watched all the details...--MONGO 08:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I feel both of you are valuable editors. I was looking over your addition to Neoconservatism in the United States and it looked fine...maybe a little left (no insult intended) but overall, better than what was there. I am not a strong advocate of RfC, ArbCom, or anything along those lines. I think that some could have filed stuff against me in the past and was ?lucky? enough to avoid it. Your case is probably strong and it appears that Silverback has not been very apologetic. I haven't seen that he has commented on the RfC yet so maybe after he does that would allow me the opportunity to see both sides of the story. I just noticed on the Admin noticeboard your comments, am familiar with Silverback and was trying to keep things from spiraling out of control. I think I may have upset you with my comments and that was not my intention. I'll probably stay out of it from here on out.--MONGO 09:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: Neoconservatism in the U.S.: I just thought that the term itself isn't widely used by neocons themselves as a personal description of their politics or policies...it is by paleocons and liberals much more often...and in some cases, in a disparaging manner...but I think that is mentioned elsewhere. My main contributions to the article is to revert the repeated anti-Jewish lingo that keeps cropping up and I won't profess to be any sort of expert on the subject matter...just sort of keen to slight word play due to my bias of being a moderate conservative. My editing there will primarily be to revert vandalism and contribute to talk. As I said, your edit appeared to be much better than what was there and follows a NPOV.--MONGO 10:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool...and works for me. I appreciate your link qualifying the issue. I never doubted that the term is used by neocons themselves, just (as you also pointed out) not as frequently as it is by their political opposition.--MONGO 10:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed page histories

In the future, with pages like Lenin Peace Prize/Stalin Peace Prize, please take care to (1) preserve edit histories when moving or redirecting pages (avoid copy and paste moves), and (2) quash double-redirects. →Raul654 17:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Got any info on 1010804171.jpg? (Venezuelan vote yes woman)

Hi, I think the image [1] was a great addition to Wikipedia. It has been deleted now. The deletion log seems to imply that you were the original uploader [2]. Can you give me any info about this image, or where I can find it's status with respect to copyright? Thanks. Gronky 01:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, the mystery has been solved. There was no copyright issue, the picture was simply no longer being used anywhere. I'll re-upload it and re-add it to the Venezuelan 2004 recall page. Thanks anyway. Gronky 01:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Early Communism

I intend to rv your recent changes - (but not tonight)Linuxlad

In the future could you please post content-related concerns on the article talk page? Thanks. 172 | Talk 18:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The normal convention is (I observe!) to warn a user that there is going to be some action, and _then_ to post material points on the relevant talks page.. Eg I would have expected this (ie your) reply (but no more) to go on _my_ talk page Bob Linuxlad

Soviet history

Hi, since you wrote most of the soviet history, I think you will know what to do with a new Demokratizatsiya artice, which is a cut'n'paste from LOC country studies about Gorbachov's times. Please say something at Talk:Demokratizatsiya before people start some useless work. mikka (t) 22:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please cool it on the name calling, "Surrealism is revolution troll". Thank you.Classicjupiter2 01:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spoofing by User:172 sysop status

172, I took the liberty of moving User talk:172 sysop status to User talk:172/sysop status -- because User:172 sysop status (a suspected sock puppet of User:SuperTroll was apparently exploiting the file name to escape vandalism warnings. Please feel free to move it further. --Nlu 05:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you very much for your support. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jong-il - ruler or leader?

I call your attention to this poll: [3] --Bletch 01:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Titoxd's RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. I never thought I would get so much support! Thanks to your help, my nomination was the 10th most supported RfA in Wikipedia history. Now, please keep an eye out on me while I learn the new tools, ok? Thanks again! Tito xd^(?!?) 18:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

stpete.org photos

Hi 172,

Could you point at the page stating the photos you're uploading from stpete.org are in the public domain?

Thanks - Tempshill 22:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it differs - the US federal government, by law, can't hold the copyright on anything, hence the CIA World Factbook being in the public domain. This restriction does not apply to states or municipalities, so they can go ahead and claim the copyright to all their workers' photos, if they want (and many of them do - see California's department of transportation). And worse is the paragraph you cited about the photographers:

If you are a photographer who would like to submit photos for use on the City Web site, please send them as an JPG email attachment.... Photo credit will be given if your photo is used as a picture of the day. If you would like to use a photo for your project, please include the credit line "Photo Courtesy of the city of St. Petersburg." and make "St. Petersburg" a link to the city site, www.stpete.org (if possible).

That sounds free-ish, but it's clear that the individual photographer still owns the copyright to his photo, and hasn't released it into the public domain or licensed it under the GFDL by sending it to the St. Petersburg website. Tempshill 22:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that the law differs, but in practices cities often want their information to be public in order to promote commerce. That being said, it's not much of a surprise that there is no indication of a city copyright on the website. So the evidence points to the photos being public. 172 | Talk 22:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, the evidence points to the photos being copyrighted. As you undoubtedly know, under U.S. law, when a photographer snaps an image, the image is immediately copyrighted to him, with no action necessary on his part (such as registering it with the U.S. Copyright Office, or even labeling it with a copyright notice). If he were to subsequently upload that image to every website in the world, this would not impugn his claim to the copyright (though it would definitely harm his ability to collect damages in court). The most that you could argue is that he's giving St. Petersburg the right to use the photo for its own promotional purposes. Now, you could probably make a fair use claim for Wikipedia to utilize the photos, based on the latter. But the photos are definitely not in the public domain. Tempshill 23:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for retagging as fair use. Now back to the more real problem, which lately has been people uploading photos from random websites and claiming they're copyrighted but free to use. Tempshill 23:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lir

It appers the troll known as user: Lir is still around here's he his website www.kapitalism.net, I figured you should see it for youself---A friend

Apologies and Award

After extensively probing your history, I hereby award you the Barnstar of Diligence. It is duly awarded for your precision contributions to Cold War-related articles, your dedication to methodological rigor, and your exceptional professionalism and level-headedness in the face of acrimonious disputes. Saravask 14:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After looking more deeply into your user history, I must sincerely apologize for my unsubstantiated accusations (details on the Fidel Castro talk page). I also discovered other things about your contributions, including your substantial reworking and painstakingly scrutinized buildup of the George F. Kennan article. Feel free to post the barnstar on your page or leave it here for others to see. Please, do not respond to this posting in any way (I've caused you to squander enough of your time). Warmest regards, Saravask 14:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop

You, or any Wikipedia user, can contribute your suggestions and comments to the /Workshop page of any active arbitration case. Comments on evidence or proposals can help in understanding the import of evidence and in refining proposals. Proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies may be listed on /Proposed decision and form part of the final decision. Fred Bauder 14:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again

Hi 172: I just came across your page and wanted to let you know that I am delighted to see that you are still contributing to this ever-expanding global Wikipedia encyclopedia of ours. Every bit of your input counts (no matter how "small" you may consider it to be), so keep on going strong, and again, "good to see ya". IZAK 07:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA/SV

Im deeply grateful for your comments in my support at my difficult RFA. I hope all has been well with you. Sincerely, -St|eve 04:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hey again

you know a while you said you could help me get that ArbCom ban possibly overturned? well i dunno how often i'll be using this site but if that's still possible, to open a contest against the results of that, any help'd be appreciated. i'm not really sure how these processes work.

oh and thanks again for helping on the Kissinger article. Dr. Trey 22:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Silverback has been accepted. Please place evidence on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Silverback/Evidence. You may advance proposed solutions and make comments on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Silverback/Workshop. Fred Bauder 14:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborate?

Would you please elaborate here about the edit summary for your most recent edit to Kim_Jong-il? - Brian Kendig 23:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mar del Plata

ok, will help out if I can. There should be some interesting reports in the alternative media. -- Viajero | Talk 09:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation request

Hi. There has been a request for mediation involving you made at WP:RFM. If you are willing to take part in the mediation, please add your name there or email me at sam DOT korn AT gmail DOT com. Cheers, [[Sam Korn]] 17:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union

Hi there, 172! I am a bit puzzled by your recent revert of the Soviet Union article back to Yuliya's version. I partially reverted her edits where I did not see them as objective and/or NPOV. She also deleted some facts, which I restored (and which, with your recent edit, are gone again). Could you, please, explain me your reasoning? I am sure you do not deny that the repressions took place, that the occupation of Afghanistan was indeed military, and that the Soviet growth statistics were doubted by most Western analysts? Did you, perhaps, mean to only partially revert the changes? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 00:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. I was the one who uploaded the original version of the text before her modifications, actually. Her edits struck me as changes in language and style, not factual content. So I did not see reason to revert them entirely at the time. 172 | Talk 00:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying this for me. Do you now intend to restore the facts that had been removed?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 01:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rangerdude

There is an active arbitration case concerning user:Rangerdude at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude/Evidence. I have presented evidence of Rangerdude's attacks about other editors, and I included a negative personal comment he made to you. The ArbCom is seeking greater involvement in their cases. -Willmcw 07:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Soviet Union

Hi, I note that you've edited some articles relating to the Soviet Union and so I was wondering if you'd like to join WikiProject Soviet Union, joining doesn't obligate you to do anything, just I'd be happy of any input I can get for improving articles relating to the USSR. Thanks - FrancisTyers 03:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for your support of my RfA which finally passed! I greatly appreciate it! Ramallite ^(talk) 04:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Communism

I believe the page is ok now? If not please let me know. R adiant _>|< 14:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious POV-pushers

Seems to be a lot of that going around these days. I'm dealing with a TPP who keeps trying to insert the Swift Vets' talking points into the John Kerry article, and I was asked to help out at Income tax, where a TPP keeps insisting that the article should "state the fact that the U.S. income tax is unconstitutional as applied but not in general, and state the fact that the courts have rejected the law and constitution illegally." It seems that sensible editors are having to spend more and more of their time dealing with this sort of attack. I'll try to look in on your problem but it will probably be when next I'm on. JamesMLane 09:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

favor?

Would you look at this [4] and comment on both Hogeye's and my points? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation

Could you look out after the inflation article, I just made a huge roll back to get rid of a vast array of povcruft that had accumulated in the last month - a gold bug got loose on the page and started sermonizing about the errors of modern economic theory in not going back to gold, and there was a disorganization of the page by another editor who was writing personal essaylets. Stirling Newberry 14:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate, U still around? I haven't seen you in ages.

You might want to take a look at Talk:Côte d'Ivoire. International usage on all major English speaking medias, as well as WP Manual of Style and NCs, suggest that that page should be at Ivory Coast. I proposed that it be moved. A lot of people insist that whatever the evidence most English speakers use Côte d'Ivoire and oppose a move tooth and nail. Given your commitment to actually using professional encyclopædic standards on WP, and your skills as a historian your opinions would be more than welcome (indeed dare I say it are sorely needed!) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might enjoy this

The Georgian Creed
I believe in George Herbert, the father almighty

creator of American power on earth
and of wars, seen and unseen.
I believe in George Duyba, his most important son, our president.
He was conceived by the oil industry
born of the blessed Barbara
suffered under Bill Clinton
and was crucified, losing the election.
He descended unto the Supreme Court
At the inauguration he rose again
and ascended in power
where he is seated at the old desk of the Father
so that in wars he can choose
the living and the dead.
I believe in election influence of Jeb Bush,
A powerful Republican Party,
Communion with Congress
the forgiveness of voters
the resurrection of the party
and the Bush Family everlasting.

Amen.

It is based on the Apostles Creed. I wrote it in a bored moment on WP. :-) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

news requests

Hey 172, I've seen you around previously, on the George Kennan page especially, where you did a bang-up job. Looking at your userpage, I thought you might like to know about the Wikipedia:Newspapers and magazines request service. I try to keep an eye on it, although there's not too much activity at the moment. It also occurs to me that we have somewhat overlapping interest areas here on Wikipedia. Hope to see you around. All the best. <nowiki></nowiki>—[[User:Thames|thames]] 16:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Command Economy

Hey, awesome job with the command economy article. I thought I was going to have to redo the entire article and take all of that rambling out. Your edits were really precise and clear. I really appreciate the great work you do.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt

I think you may be interested in this nomination. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibu tt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you might want to archive some of your talk page, it's currently 141kb long....

Human rights in Belarus

Hi, I noticed you put a NPOV tag on this article. I'm the one who created it, I noticed you know quite a bit about Russian history. If you've got a moment, would you mind telling me what's POV about it, and maybe I can change a few things in it? Thanks. :) I just want to know what it is that needs to go and I'll rewrite it, since I didn't really intend to write a non-npov article...XYaAsehShalomX 09:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Black RfA

Thank you very much for your support of my RfA. Thanks, in part, to you, I am now an Administrator, and I pledge to use my newfound powers for good rather than evil. Thanks again!--Sean|Bla ck 08:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hey

Don't worry about it. Do keep me posted on what you are up to, I often can't follow everything going on here, but would like to know, Slrubenstein | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 20:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of modern day dictators

Has it been considered to create List of heads of government described as totalitarian, List of heads of government who ruled by decree, List of heads of government who suspended the constitution and the like, and to have "List of dictators" link only to these lists? Gazpacho 21:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed spin-offs mentioned above are much worse, actually. The problem is that in all but the most obvious cases historians are always disagreeing on the nature and scope of the authority of just about any individual leaders or regime. By making any of the above proposed classifications, Wikipedia editors wind up arbitrating between professional historians who spend their entire lives specializing in the study of any of the regimes listed but disagree on these matters themselves. So, the judgment one way or other (whether or not to include one leader or another) is inherent original research. 172 21:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example where historians disagree about whether a leader suspended the constitution? Gazpacho 22:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing Enabling Act I can see what you mean, but I still believe it is possible to have such lists where there is a clear paper trail (e.g. the enabling act quite explicitly allowed Hitler to rule by decree). Gazpacho 00:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What a miserable trainwreck the AfD discussion has become. If only someone other than juicifer had raised the issue. Gazpacho 10:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your appreciative comments and for taking the time to write them. I do think of Wikipedia as one of the great experiments in the history of civilization, and, aside from the fact that I find it fascinating and pleasurable (although occasionally stressful and also sometimes conflicting with my job and various other intellectual projects) to participate, I sometimes do think of myself as having almost a kind of moral obligation to do so. I will check out the article you mentioned. Jeremy J. Shapiro 00:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case: community vs AndriyK

Hi 172, I thought you might be interested in following this ArbCom case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Community_vs._User:AndriyK even if you have no intention on getting involved. Regards, --Irpen 09:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dictators

Agreed, voted to delete per POV policy. Stirling Newberry 15:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Case closed

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Silverback case. Raul654 06:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

This isn't your cup of tea, but as an independent academic you might want to keep an eye on Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence. User:DreamGuy is assing around again deleting links he does not want to have, or rather ensuring that only his article is linked to the section on the Jack the Ripper rumours that swamped Albert Victor. A second article also discusses the topic in the context of royal myths and legends. He has been trying for months to get the other article deleted so that the only article that covers the topic is his own pet one. Every attempt he has made to get things his way has been met with silence by everyone. Even his merge attempt got a grand total of himself participating. Since all his other attempts have failed he now tries to delete any reference to the other article in the Prince Albert Victor page. Of the fun of people like DreamGuy and their agenda, eh! FearÉIREANN 19:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Deal

172 you should take a look at New Deal someone's been adding some rather dubious stuff to it over the last day or two. G-Man 21:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another humanist

Please see Talk:Vladimir Lenin (and "Lenin" history). It looks like we are about to have yet another humanist on crusade to call people "ruthless murderers" in articles. YOu have a much better eloquence than me to explain that this is not how encyclopedia is written. mikka (t) 17:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom'd

well no luck with Dav. dunno if i should just forget the appeal. i don't know how these things work and if you don't have much a chance for success if both parties can't agree.

i think i should be able to though since i probably wouldn't've gotten the ban i got if you hadn't been my archeditwarenemy #1 for like 5 years. in a way it seems like your input should be worth the most since we had a lotta edit wars since i first got here in summer 2004.

anyway any input'd be appreciated. i won't be bummed if i can't do this, even though i do think my work on Henry Kissinger deserves a Wiki Pulitzer. Dr. Trey 07:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of White supremacists

You might be interested to know that I've nominated List of White supremacists for deletion. Mackensen (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators

Hi. I just wanted to comment on something you said (after the debate was closed, for which you get a minor slap on the wrist). You said, ... minority of users getting away with voting NPOV ... on a technicality. As of now the deletes are at 60% instead of the needed 67%. This was not a vote, it was a discussion trying to achieve Consensus. This is no strict definition of what consensus is, and there is certainly no pre-defined percentage of votes which must be achieved. All that being said, if you feel that an error was made here, we've got a procedure for that. You can ask for a deletion review. --RoySmith 14:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merging dictator lists

Please comment, if you would, on the proposal at Talk:List of modern day dictators to merge into List of dictators. Gazpacho 21:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mailing list

I've started a mailing list to discuss the bias against progressives on Wikipedia, among other topics - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/redfaction . If you want the e-mail address hidden to all except the moderator (me), make sure that option is checked. While I'd love it if this list took off, it will probably mostly be me sending off an e-mail once a month about the latest travesty (I still can't get over how Jimbo appointed JayJG to ArbCom).

I have been too busy with real life stuff to be too involved in Wikipedia recently. I have been researching for wiki articles, even going to libraries, but I am publishing those articles like this one[5] or this one[6] on other wikis. They usually take me over a month to write (after work). I wouldn't even say they're that good - the narrative is horrible, I just try to get all the dates and facts straight, with two or more sources for most everything. Then I try to focus more on classes than individuals. I should also add that it's rather difficult to track down some of these things, such as what year the Huks in the Philippines stopped fighting. I still don't have an answer to that, different sources give different dates, I have a feeling it just petered out instead of coming to a complete stop. Anyhow, sign up to my list to hear my monthly rant about this or that. Ruy Lopez 23:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on dictators & its afd

Hi 172, I wanted to respond to a comment you left me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators, that I didn't get a chance to respond to (I've been editing rather irregularly lately). I'll reproduce it here:

No reason has been offered? Regarding whether or not the list is crucial to coverage of the topic, see Jeremmy Shapiro's comments explaining how the list probably serves more to give a misleading picture of political reality than it reveals. Further, Jtdirl, Wizzy, Colipon, John Kenney and I, along with a handful of other editors here, I have provided a plethora of examples of leaders who fall into a gray area, and thus either way their inclusion or exclusion here is on the basis of the POV judgment calls of individual Wikipedia editors. If you do not remember a reason for deletion being stated, you need to take another look at the discussion threads. On a personal note, I have come across your work on articles related to the Federalist Papers; so, I know that you are quite a bright student of political science and political thought. Given your level of sophistication, I expect that you will be able to understand some of our concerns. 172 04:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I've looked at Jeremy's comment and I do agree with some of his concerns. Also, looking at the disputed page itself, I see that it's a long way from where I would like: particularly, people are spending a lot of time "coming up with a definition" of dictator to govern inclusion, which seems like an obvious instance of original research. The question to ask seems not to be "does this person meet some (arbitrary) standard that Wikipedians have established" but rather "does the bulk of the academic/ scholarly/ media/ other reputable sources describe this person as a dictator." Judgment calls will of course in the end be required, but I think our general resolution mechanisms will be up to handling them, and (importantly) I think we will be able to inform these judgments largely with established research and commentary rather than the general opinions of editors. I don't see the page as hopeless, and I've been surprised in the past by pages that seemed doomed to endless controversy and managed to recover.

Also, part of my reason for keeping the page is the shabby treatment at dictatorship and dictator of the subject. Proper coverage of the concept seems to require the analysis of a fair number of actual cases. Right now the best coverage along those lines seems to be provided by the list, which at least links to many elucidating examples. Improvement of the main pages could perhaps obviate this benefit of the list, but for now I don't think we are in that state. (On another note, those two pages should perhaps be merged.) I apologize for commenting that no reason for deletion had been offered; what I meant to say was that no reason had been offered that I found compelling. While it was argued by a number of people that the article was inherently POV, it seems to me that the article's problems are not irreparable and that eventually this material could form a valuable part of Wikipedia. Cheers, Christopher Parham (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Economic fascism

There is an ongoing attempt to define state intervention in the economy as inherently fascist through the creation of an article entitled economic fascism. I have started an AfD on that article based on the argument that "economic fascism" is (a) too vague to ever be properly defined and (b) an inherently POV term of abuse which will cause eternal edit wars, and the observation that the subject of economic policy in fascist regimes is already covered in a multitude of other articles, including fascism itself and corporatism. Please consider voting or commenting on the AfD. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of modern dictators

Sorry, the AfD had been closed by the time I had a chance to look at it. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

F-bomb about the AFD vote. Perhaps when there's more evidence of the retarded and intractable edit wars that will no doubt ensue on that page it can be brought up for AFD again. All the best. —thames 05:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya 172. It might not be up your street but (literally!) lol but the St. John Lateran is located at the Italian version of its name, thanks to a four person vote in April, even though English speakers worldwide (except in the US) don't use the Italian version of the name. I've proposed a vote to move the page back to its original location. It is at Talk:Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano. Please drop in and vote. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Plínio Salgado.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Plínio Salgado.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by going to "Your contributions" from your user page and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Pak21 13:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mesoeconomics

I felt it bad form to add the first reference, but once it existed I had no trouble adding the beginnings of an article. Stirling Newberry 16:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic fascism 2

DO NOT edit a closed AFD, my notes where to clarify my thoughts when closing the AFD and should not be edited just as you would not edit a user's statement on a talk page. If you continue you may be blocked as editing a closed AFD page can qualify as vandalism. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 20:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you would not mind please respond on my talk page why you felt it was appropriate to both modify a closed AFD as well as modifying another user's (in this case the closing administrator's) comments. I am at the moment assuming that this was some sort of misunderstanding and am assuming good faith however any clarification on this would be nice. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

172, also if you would like the article to be redirected attempt to get a consensus on the talk page to do so. I like all people support being bold in certain situations but doing so without a consensus is against policy and is going to just lead to an edit war which should be avoided if at all possible. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 20:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo

I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at this case. I am afraid Ghirlandajo is trying to create a rift between Polish and Russian editors, and if he is unchecked, it may damage all of the good will that we have been able to work out through our previous collaborations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see that despite my reiterated requests to the contrary, Piotrus continues to recruit supporters for his anti-Ghirlandajo crusade. 172, thanks for calling me a "potential asset" to the Wikipedia after I have made more edits in my 9 months of editing than Halibutt has done in 2 years of his. Nevertheless, I would like to point out that your assumption that Piotrus and Halibutt are "exceedingly tolerent toward users with other perspectives, and consistently polite and friendly" is wrong. Calling me a "vodka pisser" and racist, as practiced by Halibutt, is neither polite nor friendly. If my comments were not always exmplary, I brought my good-willed apologies to Mr Halibutt on *three* occasions, the last time just five days ago (see his talk page), and every time he bit the hand that I extended towards him, openly presuming my bad faith and preaching me in a judgmental tone: "You can call it some sort of personal probation if you please". After that, not only did he maintain a confrontational tone, but advised me to reconsider my membership in this wikipedia. What is particularly sad, he refuses not only to apologize but even to acknowledge numerous insults and personal attacks directed to me: "No, Ghirlandajo, we were not both bad tempered. You were. Accusing me of insults when there were none will not change that". Having said that, the only person who refuses to co-operate there is Mr Halibutt, and I have nothing to learn from him, contrary to your advises. --Ghirlandajo 09:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx for your comment. You can see above what we have to deal with. Ghirlandajo has now accussed me of spamming (again). :/ In other news: Could you consider adding the Wikipedia:Babel template to your userpage? It is very helpful in case translators are needed and such.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patria Y Libertad

Do you have any insight on this AfD? Gazpacho 01:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for moderating the Edit war on Communism

Hi, the recent edit war in Communism has been very draining. I would like your support in an effort to moderate that war. I made a proposal for moderating the edit war in a section by that name in the discussion page of Communism. I'm hoping that you will add your name to it. (BostonMA 19:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Your comments would be welcome at Prime Minister. One user, without even bothering to go through the proper procedures, wants to rename the article Prime minister and keeps moving it to push that version!!! While there is an article for all uppercasing or all lowercasing, half-casing (which is all WP allows, as all lowercasing is not possible in article titles) would produce a semi-literate mess that would make WP a laughing stock. A student who writes the title that way in an essay earns an instant fail because it is seen as such a monumental clanger. With all the attacks WP is under right now, the last thing WP needs is to make it look as though it does not know how to write the title of the office of premier correctly. What next? Lord mayor? United states? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration against User:RJII

I opened a RFAr against RJII for POV pushing, incivility, and refusal to take the RFC process seriously. If you would like to join it, feel free to do so. Firebug 18:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it is of interest to you, but on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion there is a vote to delete a template called behave. It is designed to deal with kiddie vandalism and works excellently, but by the usual WP mob are trying to delete it. (I'm all in favour of deletions of unencyclopædic content but the scale of deletions on WP is out of control. I'm on the brink of quitting WP at this stage I am so fed up of it. WP has gone to the dogs IMHO.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Partitions of Poland

Would you take a look at talk:Partitions of Poland#Discussion. We are discussing a possible change of the name of the article there and I believe that a view from non-Polish perspective would be helpful. --Lysy ^(talk) 21:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heya 172

Good to see you around again! - Ta bu shi da yu 21:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ADL and LaRouchies

As an Australian I don't know much about the American ADL (I've had a fair bit to do with the local affiliate), but I will support any effort to get rid of Herschelkrustofsky and other LaRouchy wreckers.

While I'm here I feel I should warn you that someone has been impersonating you at various articles relating to North Korea, inserting gross pro-Communist POV and preventing any critical comment on the grotesque Kim dynasty. This doppel-172 does not seem to have been active lately but you ought to be watchful in case he comes back - as I am being. Adam 09:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What a statesmanlike view to take. If only everyone conceded at once that "it is increasingly clear that your point of view was correct all along", Wikipedia would be a much happier place. I shall have this noble sentiment framed and mounted. Adam 11:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC) (PS please archive your Talk page)[reply]

ADL

Hey, thanks for helping out on the Saddam article.

Taking a look, it seems that all of the links provided that mention the spying on the ANC come from sites with a strong anti-ADL bias. That said, if anyone can find a more moderate source, I don't see why it can't be mentioned, as it does give both sides of the issue. I'm sure you would not want to censor (properly referenced) US ties with nasty rightist dictators, am I wrong? CJK 16:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If its properly cited, I don't see why it can't be mentioned briefly. Of course, if we were talking about a photo that showed the ADL and South African government individuals collaborating (in an article about Apartheid) it would be a play on emotions and uncalled for. But right now, it doesn't seem terribly out of place or POV. CJK 00:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you for your support back there, that guy was really getting annoying. CJK 22:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think its interesting that all I had to do to provoke his "outrage" about my "denial" was to change exactly one word on Philippine-American War. There was no other current content dispute. Thanks for helping there too, BTW CJK 23:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

history bug

Just about the history thing, I've experienced it myself before. In fact, I submitted a bug report to BugZilla about it - the other time it was concerning vandalism with Tookie (which is now a redirect), and I was prevented from reverting that article for a long while, until someone else reverted it. -- Natalinasmpf 06:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFAr against KDRGibby

Following his rejection of mediation (twice), I have decided that I will file an arbitration request. I am busy formalising the list of parties involved. Do you wish to involve yourself as a complaining party? -- Natalinasmpf 07:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

It may not be up your alley, but very few people have came through RfC I posted about History of the World, and there is a slow but pointless revert war there (see Talk:History_of_the_World#Graph_straw_poll), so I am now down to asking fellow Wikipedians to take a look if you have time and will.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate,

Your assistance is required again. (sorry!) You may remember the war on styles that was waged some time ago and the eventual compromise reached. A series of templates were created to enable users to warn other users who attempt to reinsert styles into articles that that is no longer WP policy. However a user who is trying to get a whole series of templates deleted has nominated them on the WP:TFD for deletion. I am thoroughly fed up having to defend necessary templates from the minority of deletion police on WP who seem to act as a group: one nominates, then the rest all vote to agree with them. All help to defend the necessary templates in the styles series gratefully received. Thanks. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I am so utterly frustrated with the farce that is the WP:TFD mess. It is so obvious that 90%+ of nominations are based on ignorance of the template, and those who vote rarely have an idea what they are voting on. I have always been in favour of some deletions on WP but that this stage the scale of deletions of good stuff is breathtaking. It has led me to seriously question whether I want to stay on WP. I have spent so long trying to fix things, as have others, only to find our fixes, even though they may have an overwhelming consensus behind them, get wrecked or deleted by a small minority of deletion police who clearly don't know what they are doing. WP is in danger of destroying its own credibility through low standards of contribution and through the attacking of those who try to bring it up to professional encyclopædic standards. I don't know how long more I will have the stomach for defending professional standards against attack from those who don't think standards matter, just their own game playing. It is obvious that the lack of professional control and proper procedure is doing untold damage to WP. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just discovered that the guy making the nominations, not content with nominating templates, had been sneaking through others deleting them. Outrageous! FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]