User talk:CIS/Archive 2

Re: your poem

Thanks; that was very creative. Did you write this yourself? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops; I didn't check the edit history carefully. User:Karatloz didn't sign his poem; when you wrote your comment underneath I assumed you'd written the whole entry, which is why I was confused. By the way, I deleted User:CIS again. Please do not re-create it (unless you register the account). You should not create user pages for non-existent users. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Today is April Fool's Day, however, that does not mean that vandalism will be tolerated. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you continue these unproductive edits, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 03:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus that was quick. Are you at the Jesus page pressing refresh every 1.5 seconds? CrazyInSane 03:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Taint funny, Magee. Rick Norwood 13:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Augustus

Thanx; you're right, I just tumbled to it a bit slow; before you posted, I started to reply and refute, etc. and I suddenly realized it. Too much of this stuff out there, for once it even snagged me, briefly.... Best, Bill 13:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images

CIS, you're using several fair use images on your user page. According to point 9 of Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy (which is official Wikipedia policy), "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace...They should never be used...on user pages." Please remove them. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you removed them and then restored some of them, and since your block has expired, I took the liberty of removing the remaining fair use images for you. I'm sorry; I hope you can find some suitable images to replace them. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind, CiS, that Knowledge Seeker isn't doing this just to tick you off. Even if KS were to "ignore" the fair use violation (as you suggest on your user page), there are plenty of others who wouldn't. It's not that we hate user pages and think they should be boring and unadorned (and in fact the picture of yourself that was up was probably fine). It's just that it's not legally practical to claim "fair use" when the images are just decoration on someone's user page, instead of being used to illustrate an article. Powers 13:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining, Powers. I truly am sorry about this, CIS. Obviously, Powers is right, and I'm not even the first person to remove the images from your user page. But what it comes down to is that protecting Wikipedia's legal status is much more important to me. I was active at Wikipedia:Copyright problems long before you registered here, working to keep copyright violations out of Wikipedia. I used to have a fair-use picture of the Enterprise on my user page, which I've since removed. If it were on a small, personal web site, it would probably be fine; but it is problematic on a major site like Wikipedia, especially since hundreds of users would be violating copyright. You're not the only one being targetted—some longtime contributors have gotten quite upset that fair-use images have been removed from their user pages. I hope you understand. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, KS, I understand that you're following Wikipedia policy. I do wonder, however, why you never mentioned (or removed) the fair–use images when I asked you for your opinion about my talk page some time ago? Also, I would appreciate you referring to me by CrazyInSane or CIS rather than Darwiner, I dislike that name and had it changed for that purpose, thanks. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 03:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged; I updated your name in my above comments. To be honest, I'm not sure why I didn't say anything back then—I'm not sure I even really thought about it back then. I guess I didn't want to be the one to bring it up; I didn't want to appear confrontational or for you to feel that I was picking on you or something. Now that others are involved, it's more clear that this is the way things have to be, and so I didn't worry as much. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removing wikilinks

It's logical and traditional for abbreviations to be linked to the phrases for which they stand. Removing the link constitutes a removal of information. In my opinion, if you wish to break with this practice, you must make a pretty strong case at Talk:History of Earth. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been repeatedly warned by several users about edit warring over BCE/CE. If you continue in this manner, you will merit a block. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why then is "BC" or "AD" never linked? It's because they're so well known already that nobody would want to visit the link. As for BCE, it's not very well known so the article is "endorsing" its usage by including the link so as that people will see what it means and start using it; I tried linking BC once (i.e. 45 BC) but it was quickly removed as unneccesary linking. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 01:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't necessarily speak for why other articles are written the way they are, although it certainly isn't never (a quick search turned up Belgium, for instance). If I were writing an article, I would think it would be appropriate to have the first occurrence of an abbreviation link to the full phrase if the phrase weren't spelled out in the article itself. (For instance, something like "The acquired immune deficiency syndrome is caused by HIV (human immunodeficiency virus)" or "...is caused by HIV".) Such decisions are style-dependent and probably must be made on a case-by-case basis; I wouldn't want to issue a blanket statement that all articles should follow a certain style. But it makes sense to me here to link the abbreviation to is full phrase. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for repeated edit warring over era notation. You are welcome to resume editing when the block expires. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thaks for your message - I think it is important to specify that the calendar is based on Jesus as a historical rather than religious figure, since this can be backed up by sources including historical documents. I agree with you that that the article on Historical Jesus is ill-suited for this purpose (seeing that it it is an article that compares the two ideas), but it is the only document which discuses Jesus in a concise historical light.

Let us wait for more input via the article's talk page, and then act upon common consensus. My apologies meanwhile for jumping to conclusions. Sfacets 13:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meta tags

How about now? Does it work? --HappyCamper 05:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance, HappyCamper – the requests have now worked. I recieved this message of confirmation from Google :
"2006-04-08 05:09:26 GMT :
removal of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gator1 ... pending"
Thanks again, and we all hope Gator1's personal information will soon be eradicated. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 05:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. How long does the page need to be deleted, or should we wait for the 48 hours to see what happens? --HappyCamper 05:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I was involved in a similar situation last month, the cached version of the page that I desired to be removed was completely gone from Google's archives (including the cached page) the very next morning circa 8:00AM.. I had processed the AUTOBOT requests at about 9:00PM the previous night. Google suggests it can take anywhere from a few hours to 2 or 3 days, so, we'll have to wait. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 05:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm slow when it comes to refreshing pages on Wikipedia myself. I think I'm going to step away from the situation now. I don't think there is much left to do, other than to wait and see. Possibly a checkuser to see if this vandal is linked to any other accounts on Wikipedia. We've probably done as much as the Wiki can do...anything beyond that is probably out of the scope of the project. Thanks again for your help. I know Gator1 would appreciate your efforts too. --HappyCamper 05:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Well it seems like Gator's stuff is disappearing from Google...but of all things, his adminiship nomination is back up near the top. What to do now... --HappyCamper 10:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date/Time

It's added to the end of the sig in preferences, for example my signature is [[User:NSLE|NSL]][[WP:EA|E]] ([[User_talk:NSLE|T]]+[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|C]]) at {{subst:CURRENTTIME}} [[Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]] ([[{{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}-{{subst:CURRENTMONTH}}-0{{subst:CURRENTDAY}}]])

The "0" before {{subst:CURRENTDAY}} is needed because for days before the 10th of the month it would produce "1", rather than "01", etc. The wikilinks around the YEAR-MONTH-DAY adjust the looks to the user's prefs (be it Month Day, Year or Day Month Year etc).

You have to select "raw signatures" in prefs, and when signing use three tildes instead of four (this takes some getting used to at first). NSL E _(T+C) at 05:51 UTC (2006-04-08)

Re: Your e-mail

I did receive your e-mail; thank you for the nice things you said. I absolutely intend to respond to it, but I'm not sure if I'll have time tonight—I want to be able to properly address your questions. Yes, it's a terrible shame about Gator1—it's horrible that this could even happen! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Holiday (book)

It would be helpful when you move an article to fix all the links to that original page. It makes a lot of work especially when the link is top a non-article anad redirect. Please do the work properly instead of leaving it for the rest of us to clean up your undiscussed whimsical move. Dabbler 10:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I checked again and only found one overlooked link change. Unfortunately it was the first place I checked so I feared that it was an indication of greater problems. Dabbler 12:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your userbox

I made this mistake myself while thinking about things, in your userbox about reincarnation, did you mean ressurection instead? It's just when I was listening to something about reincarnation and ressurection I confused myself and made one get associated with the other in my mind and it made me sad, so I just thought i'd ask. Homestarmy 15:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So by reincarnation, your talking about in revelations where we all go up to heaven, then after the apocalypse and all, we return back to earth? It's just these words sometimes have more than one meaning :/. Homestarmy 19:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Holiday

Hi - no I have not read the citations you posted and have not yet formed a view on original research or the validity of the hypothesis or otherwise. Have to do some other things (non-wikipedia) first and then will have a look Regards--A Y Arktos\^talk 23:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can help you out on this :). Also, i've been meaning to reply to our earlier conversation, but I want to make sure I can do a good job and get my common sense straight first :/. Homestarmy 02:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, on your little war with Thumbelina, looking at his edits, he just moved the information down a column with that citation, where's the information being removed? :/ Homestarmy 22:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if I may add, you seem extremely protective of the wording you favor. You claim that Thumbelina is violating consensus, but there has been no strong consensus one way or the other for any wording in the article. You wrote the article and are the primary contributor, but that doesn't mean your preferred wording is automatically "consensus." Worse, you threatened Thumbelina with blocking. The edits Thumbelina has made are not vandalism, and to state that they are is just plain wrong. I will agree with you that Thumbelina should work with you and the rest of us on the talk page to acheive consensus, but you should realize that your "version" of the article is no more backed by consensus than Thumbelina's is. I reiterate my early call for you to take a step back and try to look at the issue covered by this article in a more objective fashion. I continue to fear you are too close to the issue, and perhaps too emotionally invested in the article itself, to edit it neutrally. Powers 23:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also certain I don't have to remind you of the 3RR. If User:142.176.56.175 is your IP address, you are in violation of the 3-Revert Rule, and worse, specifically took measures to bypass the 3-Revert Rule. If you are not, then I apologize for the implication, but you must admit it is suspicious that that IP's only edit is to revert Thumbelina after you already did so three times in one day. Powers 23:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology, as "User:142.176.56.175" is most definitely not me, though yes I do admit it seems suspicious, what can I do? Also, I wish you would review User:Thumbelina's edits and see that they are not offering any type of NPOV in comparison to the original state of the page, they are simply ignoring the cited facts that are agreed apon as valid by me and other users who have visited Spring holiday's talk page. I can assure you that the version prior to Thumbelina's rude intrusion is as NPOV as possible, and I'm sure you won't find any POV, and every one of my claims has extensive in-text citations. Thumbelina also removed an agreed apon consensus between myself and User:AYArktos, which holds that there should be extensive assurance that these terms are only used in North America. Also, the user added non-Christian holidays such as "Hanukkah", which is completely original research as there is no attempt to validate his claims. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 23:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, I've listed it under suspected sockpuppets, just for due diligence. I hope you understand. As for the rest of your message, you're very mistaken. First of all, two people does not a consensus make, especially when there was at least one person (me) disagreeing with the stance of the two. Second of all, Thumbelina has now added a citation illustrating that non-Christian holidays ARE sometimes included in the umbrella terms. Check for yourself. As for POV, I strongly disagree that the previous version (your favored version) was "as NPOV as possible". Powers 23:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

CIS, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion only covers articles; that is, pages in the main space. User pages and user subpages fall under Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. I removed the AFD tag; if you wish to propose this user subpage for deletion, please nominate it on WP:MFD. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome. If you’re talking about a reply to your e-mail, I’m sorry; it’s taking me longer than expected. I’ve had little time this week and I’ve wanted to spend more time on History of Earth. I guess I’ll just send you a shorter reply for now. I already left some information for the participants on the WikiProject’s talk page about why the project as it stood was inappropriate. I’ll leave her a message but as long as they’re not actually going around changing era notation, I think it’s probably OK. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your e-mail. You're welcome; I hope that the issue will be resolved smoothly. Yes, I remember all too well, but you seem to be a much more productive editor now. I'm glad you weren't indefinitely blocked. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note re: History of Earth

Hi, CIS, I just wanted to let you know why I reverted your recent edit to History of Earth. Billion means different things in different parts of the world; in the United States, it means 10⁹, but in other countries may mean 10¹². This is a problem, and therefore when I originally wrote the article, I used "×10⁹" throughout the article to be clear. This later struck me as overly awkward. Other possibilites are "Ga" (giga-annum, often seen in geologic literature) and "Mya" (million years ago, with something like '4550 Mya' to avoid the 'billion' problem). While these are unambiguous, I don't feel any of them are well-established in popular scientific literature to use in this article. After some discussion (see Talk:History of Earth/Archive 1#"Billion" revisited), I decided to switch to just using "billion" for simplicity, writing out the number at its first instance to avoid ambiguity. Hope that makes sense. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...I don't think I can help you out with that. I can see the merits of both wording styles, but I'm really not active enough on the article to be able to suggest one over the either. To be honest, the mathematician (and astronomer) in me would just prefer something like astronomical year numbering, avoiding clunky abbreviations and the lack of a year zero. But in this case, I think you would be best to seek out the opinion of others on the article's talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article merge discussions

Regarding the articles Season's Greetings and Happy Holiday(s), if you want to see one article merged into another, instead of just redirecting it out of the blue, tag the article with Template:Mergeto so that other Wikipedians can discuss it and arrive at a community concensus first. Merely merging/redirecting the article(s) out of the blue, with no explanation, is good reason for reversion. Stratadrake 21:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I wanted to come by and give you a belated thank you for your Easter well wishes. I was away from Wikipedia for a little bit, but I'm back and very refreshed! :-) --HappyCamper 20:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is dangerous to make such unqualified generalizations when most instances are exceptions

The only time any text should be placed before the bolded article name is when the word is "The", or as otherwise neccesary.

The only time??? There are very frequent occasions for the bolded title phrase to appear halfway through a moderately long opening sentence. Michael Hardy 22:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... a few examples:

In exponential growth, the article begins thus:

In mathematics, a quantity that grows exponentially (or geometrically) is one that grows at a rate proportional to .........

In Sheffer sequence, it begins thus:

In mathematics, a polynomial sequence, i.e., a sequence { p_n(x) : n = 0, 1, 2, 3, ... } of polynomials in which the index of each polynomial equals its degree, is a Sheffer sequence (from Isadore M. Sheffer) if the linear operator Q on polynomials in x defined by

Qp_n(x) = np_n−1(x)

is shift-equivariant.

incidence algebra, it begins thus:

In order theory, a field of mathematics, a locally finite partially ordered set is one for which every closed interval

[a, b] = {x : a ≤ x ≤ b}

within it is finite. For every locally finite poset and every field of scalars there is an incidence algebra, an associative algebra defined as follows.

Errors and residuals in statistics begins as follows:

In statistics, the concepts of error and residual are easily confused with each other.

Estimation of covariance matrices begins as follows:

In multivariate statistics, the importance of the Wishart distribution stems in part from the fact that it is the probability distribution of the maximum likelihood estimator of the covariance matrix of a multivariate normal distribution.

In this case the bolded article name never appears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Hardy (talk • contribs)

Your list of examples is nice, but can you present even one example where an article showcasing a person uses this method? I doubt you'll be able to because it's simply a ridiculous concept and absolutely and completely unnecessary—in all of the examples you showed I found that texts preceding the article's title were necessary to explain the concept of the article. Your viewpoint akin to starting the George W. Bush article with "America's George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States"—completely and utterly pointless and unprofessional.. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 02:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC

Sure. Patriarch Peter VII of Alexandria begins like this:

His Beatitude Peter (Petros) VII (September 3, 1949 – September 11, 2004) was the Eastern Orthodox Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and all Africa from 1997 to 2004.

I'll try to find more. I expect it will be easy. Michael Hardy 02:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one like that: Pope Damian of Alexandria:

His Holiness Damian was Coptic Pope of Alexandria (569 - 605).

Your example is a title—as assigned to be recognized as a part of the person's actual name. It's the same as "Her Majesty, the Queen" for QE2, and "Sir John A. MacDonald" for the Canadian Prime Minister. The prefix "TV's" is certainly not a title given to Mr. Craig Ferguson; the fact that he is well-known for his roles on television could easily be injected later in the sentence or further in the paragraph. I realize that you find "TV's" harmless, but it is also completely unnecessary and grammatically awkward. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 02:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Your repeated deletion of Arabic language names from various articles is a form of vandalism. Please cease and desist immediately. If you somehow think this information doesn't belong in the articles, take it up on a talk page, or better yet, start a centralized discussion. I've reverted all your edits to restore the information you deleted. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the reverts between you and User:MarkSweep regarding Arabic names and dates of birth/death. I don't have strong preference either way as I largely stay out of such disputes over semantics. But, I would like to suggest a compromise here that follows the style used for Japanese biographical articles:

Hani Saleh Hanjour, (Arabic: هاني صالح حنجور , August 13 1972 – September 11 2001)

I have implemented this at Hani Hanjour and detailed this suggestion some more at User:Kmf164/Arabic names, with some see also links to other naming conventions. This is a slight variation on Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Arabic)#Lead_paragraphs, but one I think is okay here, as the proposed guideline also says "Some cases will require variations on this format.". -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 19:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your insistence on deleting information as you've done here leaves me little choice: I've blocked you for one hour initially to stop you from causing further damage. When the block expires, you're free to implement the compromise solution suggested by Kmf164 above. But if you continue to delete Arabic names, you will quickly find yourself blocked again. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was tricky to get it to work in Hani Hanjour, but possible to include both the name, as written in Arabic, along with the DOB/death. The Arabic MOS page (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic)) along with the Japanese MOS page indicate a preference toward including the name in the native script. I think it's best we stick with this practice, though also include the DOB and death in the parenthesis. I'd rather stay out of this debate, but hope you will consider a compromise. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 19:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the Arabic name being included at all but I just couldn't find a way to evade the technical issue of not being able to include the DOB/D in parentheses along with the Arabic spelling therefore I removed the one of lesser importance. I'd be happy to include both if at all possible. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 20:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. I'll unblock you now. For future reference, if you run into a technical problem, ask for technical assistance. Technical problems are no reason to delete valid information. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

====Regarding reversions[1] made on May 2 2006 (UTC) to Spring_holiday ====

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 3 hours. William M. Connolley 18:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointed

I was disappointed to see this. And now that I leave this message on your talk page, I see you've been blocked a couple times in the last couple days. Please don't edit war. I consider you a valuable contributor, and that's why I kept your blocks finite, but if you keep this up you may find that other administrators are not as generous. Perhaps now would be a good time for a brief wikibreak. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CIS, I know that you're a productive editor. Unfortunately, my work at the hospital is keeping me a bit busier than usual and I lack the time to perform a detailed look at those conflicts right now. My main concern is to prevent you from self-destructing or doing things you'll later regret. I trust that you'll use your judgment in editing and not let your emotions dominate. I doubt that Thumbelina's edits, whether ill-advised or not, would qualify as "simple vandalism" (from WP:3RR) or even vandalism ("any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia"). In all other cases, 3RR applies, regardless of how wrong you feel the other person is. I certainly do make mistakes, though I strive to be as careful as possible, and not to do or say anything I'd later regret. And of course I take responsibility for my errors and try to rectify them when others point them out. (I hope I am open-minded to recognize my errors when I see them or they are pointed out.) Keep up your editing but try not to get too attached to articles or your view of them. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

It was very nice to talk to you last night and I hope we can do it again soon! JamieAdams 10:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you bet! I'll be talking to ya the next time you're on MSN! Cya!. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 17:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CE warning

Regarding this edit... I'd like to note that Wikipedia does generally consider CE to be a valid epoch. Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jguk#Final_decision: "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article." Also from the same decision, "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change".

Ultimately, to prevent edit wars, the rule I've heard of most is that the first use should be the one that stays, and for that article, AD seems to be the first use, so the article should probably stay as you've edited. Nonetheless, I wanted to caution you against changing CE to AD in articles without substantial justification. --Interiot 05:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't edit my user page

Don't edit my user page; that's what the talk page is for.--Prosfilaes 03:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not get emotional. Please refrain from being so abruptly rude—I was only trying to offer assistance. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 04:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like you vandalising my page. You have been around enough to know that it's inappropriate to edit someone's user page.--Prosfilaes 21:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been around long enough to know that it's appropriate to edit someone's user page if it is a well-intentioned edit.

From User:Jimbo Wales:

"You may edit this page Really, you can! For instance, this sentence was written by someone other than Jimbo. This is my user page. I like to keep it a certain way. But, the thing is, I trust you"

Prosfilaes, I know you can get emotionally involved with certain users, especially myself, but I do not believe in getting personal with someone on Wikipedia. Your personal dislike toward me should not affect your professional obligation at Wikipedia to assume good faith and respect other users. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 23:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A minor quibble: Jimbo's message doesn't necessarily encourage people to leave signed discussion on his main page rather than the talk page, but whichever. --Interiot 04:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not whichever. It is very unusual to permit other people to edit one's user page outside cleaning up vandalism and other mechanical edits. I wrote a short, to the point, message to you, and you responded by attacking me; how is that respecting other users?--Prosfilaes 07:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. How is "Please do not get emotional. Please refrain from being so abruptly rude—I was only trying to offer assistance." an attack?. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 18:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual timing

Uhh... this is quite the unusual timing for you to leave a message, but I haven't returned, I'm still leaving. (Although I'm editing right now). I was just writing a request for my user page to be deleted as I am not returning. Sorry to disappoint you. Moe ε 22:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spring holiday

Hi - as you would recall I had a number of difficulties with the article until proper sources were cited. I think the verifiability policy is very important, and the source needs in this case to be precisely relevant. I thought the comments from B.Mearns in response to the RfC were useful and that he acknowledged the issues we had with Thumbelina's edits. The suggestion of using the {{fact}} template was one useful way of de-escalating and which I took up. I have posted a note to Thumbelina's talk page stating that Crayola is not an acceptable ref and I will rollback any further edits that reintroduce that as a reference in that context. The citation needed notes should remain until appropriate (by concensus) sources are provided. As you know from our previous discussions, I am really easily persuaded by the right source :-) --A Y Arktos\^talk 23:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theories on religion

I'd be very interested in some of the theories you've developed regarding near-death and the afterlife, especially as applied to your recent renaissance. I'm looking forward to the completion/expansion of User:Darwiner111/Theories. B.Mearns ^*, KSC 17:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your interest is greatly appreciated, and I will leave a message at your talk page when the article is complete and online. It currently undergoing major additions to some of the original paragraphs (though I never posted them in the original state), and will be up and online within a few weeks. I'll give a deadline of 31 May 2006— if they're not on by then contact me. Thanks again for your interest ... I see that you're agnostic/an atheist (so was I), and I believe these theories and other websites may influence you otherwise. For now, I reccommend you visit Near-Death.com for further information. Cheers!. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 19:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward. For the record I'm absolutely not an atheist. Agnostic is part way there, but it doesn't tell the whole story. Also, the common association between agnoticism and atheism I think is pretty misleading. Being agnostic basically means you don't rely on a higher power to influence your life. Being discordian basically means the same thing, except that you fully reserve the right to do so. And being an accordian basically leaves you open to be the butt of a number of jokes. Anyway, I am looking forward to reading your ideas and maybe discussing them further if you'd like; I'm not particularly looking to change my service right now, but I'm always interested in hearing new ideas. B.Mearns ^*, KSC 19:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're long past deadline. =J. Just thought I'd check to see if you were still working on this. B.Mearns ^*, KSC 13:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yes, I'm sorry I forgot all about it. I haven't worked on it for some time now, but you'll be the first to know when (if) I finish it. I have a hard time putting my thoughts on paper but I do have a portion of things written down on my PC here. Since you stirred this up I'll probably get back into it soon and finish it up so I'll contact you then. Well, cheers. — ^`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE^` ^[discl.] 07:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it

Thanks for fixing the ABC WNT template! Thistheman 03:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of founders of major religions

I started the blankety-blank article and I always use BCE and CE. Please don't try to impose your version. Zora 07:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why are you suddenly messing around with dating systems (with edit summaries implying that there's a dispute when there isn't)? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CIS, I didn't want to bring this up, and won't mind ifyou choose to remove this comment, but please remember you've been blocked under your old username for CE/BCE, AD/BC changes. Please don't make us find the need to block for disruption? NSL E _(T+C) at 10:08 UTC (2006-05-29)

Sorry

Mistakes happen. I made one. Think about explaining your case without being a dick next time. --Zpb52 04:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conan Article

I mentioned in my edit that I put my reasons for the removal of the trivia section on the talk page - it'd be nice to have your input on why you think the trivia section belongs. In addition, I said on the talk page that I worked a few of the points into the article, which I think you'd agree is a better style choice than a random list at the bottom. If you'd like to keep the other two points, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, and I'll leave them in, but it's silly to take the trivia back out of the prose. Bamos 02:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop changing the redirect of Celine to Celine Dion!

It's not logical that Celine should redirect to Celine Dion. If someone speaks of Celine it is of course Louis-Ferdinand Céline he or she is referring to. To have a redirect on the basis of a first name does not make sense. It's like redirecting "Steven" to Steven Spielberg even though there are lots of articles about people with the first name Steven.--Blackfield 21:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: CrazyInSane

Congratulations on starting those articles. I'm afraid I don't have time to investigate any disputes right now, but perhaps you could consider Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or Wikipedia:Third opinion as other avenues to help resolve this. I also can't help but notice you've been blocked again since we last spoke. I know I've already said this to you many times, but I hope you give some consideration to stopping this behavior. I don't have time to keep an eye on things anymore and eventually it will end up before the Arbitration Committee, if someone doesn't just block you outright first. I don't want to see that happen, nor do I want to see you face an Arbitration Committee case. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

eff-Euphemism

EFF does correctly point to a disambig, but I noticed you have redirected eff to Euphemism. Just wondering why... I kinda doubt it's a common mispelling :)--AK7 19:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I presume it's because "Eff" is a euphemism. However, I can't imagine anyone typing in "eff" in the search box cares much about euphemisms. It's much more likely they're looking for EFF. Powers 20:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus-Myth

Deskana deleted it so we could move the page back if we wanted to. I didn't recreate it as I thought we should give it a day or two to see who squeaked. Since no one seems to have a problem with the page move and I've updated the links it's a good time to recreate the redirect - thanks. Sophia 22:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: AD/CE

When I respond, I'll "CC" my talk page with what I've said as well, for convenience sake. :-) The solution that I was working on was to code AD/BC and CE/BCE into templates that can display either, using a Javascript that would allow the user to toggle them back and forth with a click. Next there could be an easy way to set a "default" system via their monobook.js file. Why settle for something half way if it can be both? :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 02:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreak

As per User:LtPowers at Talk:Spring holiday, I too hope your break is being taken for all the right reasons and that your return is speedy and enthusiastic.--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyne Valley

No, I am not the Daniel Ross you know. Danielross40 02:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Kmart Holiday.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kmart Holiday.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have repeatedly ignored or abused policy to push your POV, used sockpuppets, and lied, and your recent edits show no sign of these patterns changing. I have therefore blocked you indefinitely. JoshuaZ 16:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion on ANI, I have reduced your block to 1 week. JoshuaZ 23:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CiS, I'm disappointed that you used a sockpuppet to evade your block. There are other ways to contact users you feel may be interested in your case. I agree that an indefinite block was completely out of line, but a week for repeated POV-pushing and sockpuppetry seems to be not unreasonable. I do not want to see you blocked from Wikipedia, as I believe you have much to contribute. I suspect an RfC will be forthcoming, and I hope it will be productive rather than destructive. I will be there to lend my support and advice. Powers 01:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse User:LtPowers' comments, including especially that you have much to contribute. I feel a week is a little long but having stated my view to the blocking admin will not take the matter any further. Please stay calm. I appreciate you used the sockpuppet only to notify of the block, but it makes it so hard to defend anyone when policy is breached ... :-( --A Y Arktos\^talk 01:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for commenting. I agree that using a sockpuppet (even for only one post) is unforgivable, but so is indefinitely blocking someone without first giving a fair warning. I had no way to defend myself other than to privately contact the blocker, and I admit I was too enraged to contact him personally, I wanted to make my comments visible to all. I also wanted to post information about the block at Talk:Spring holiday for the both of you to see (these comments were subsequently removed), but I still regret the sockpuppet postings. Secondly, AYArktos, I very much appreciate your comments at WP:AFI and your other support, and I also appreciate your comments LtPowers, and am glad you and I can set our differientiating opinions aside to help each other out in unfortunate situations such as this. I also appreciate that you both think my contributions are valuable. I want the both of you to be assured that I will defend your honors as well if such a similar occurrence is to take place with either of you. As for the block, since it has been reduced to 1 week I will stay calm and refrain from Wikipedia for the assigned timeframe. I endnote in the hope that you both can continue to defend the NPOV and contents of Spring holiday. I hope this incident doesn't fracture both of your confidences in my contributions, I hope you both know that I am honestly trying to use the NPOV and not leak in my biases at Spring holiday. Thank you for your confidences. — ^`CRAZY`(IN)`SANE^` 02:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Well I am glad you are going to abide by the block but am curious as to how you can edit while blocked - don't answer that for a week please :-) ! Even editing your talk page, notifying the world you are away ... is uncool. Just don't do it.--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry if I jump in here, but anyone can edit their own talk page while blocked. This is to allow the placement of unblock templates and have discussions with blocking admins. JoshuaZ 02:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Thanks - I am sorry to have assumed anything otherwise than perfect behaviour and now I remember!--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

While I would rather be editing :-), I would be delighted to provide comments to any RfC. I think your behaviour at Spring Holiday has been fine. You have dealt with a great number of critics in a reasonable way, always responding to their criticisms calmly and providing citations to support the article. I think a better article has resulted from the discussion. All the best - stay calm !!!!!--A Y Arktos\^talk 00:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

As per earlier discussions I have filed an RfC regarding your conduct: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CrazyInSane. JoshuaZ 20:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RFA

It actually needs to be done after the user has accepted their nomination. You can add it to the main RfA page then. --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 18:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LtPowers

My heartfelt thanks to you, CrazyInSane, for nominating me. However, for a myriad of reasons which I have explained on the request page, I must decline for now. I hope you understand, and thanks again! Powers ^T 23:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:ScottPlouffe.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ScottPlouffe.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic

Thanks. I do actually have an account, I guess the sign in cookie must have expired and I failed to notice. (The account name is PhennPhawcks)