User talk:Causa sui/Archive 4

Ficus elastica: an in-depth look at the rubber plant

I tagged this delete as I've merged the text of this non-standard name duplicate article with the existing Ficus elastica page - MPF 21:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dylan page dispute/mediation

I did not refuse mediation in this dispute, and it was incorrect for you to say so on the article's talk page. I asked you to clarify comments you had made regarding the dispute, which I believed called into question your suitability as the mediator. Rather than having the courtesy to explain the comments, or otherwise respond substantively, you made statements on the article's talk page which misrepresented my position. Those comments were entirely inappropriate. Monicasdude 22:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for Ryan to minutely spell out the reasons for mediation. You have at least two editors-in-good-standing who have unequivocally stated that your actions over months on the disputed page have stultified contributions from them and almost all other editors. You are being called to answer the numerous charges of those editors with Ryan as disinterested 3rd party-- you are not called and have no authority to vet Ryan, an Administrator-in-good-standing, beforehand. It's your choice to accept mediation or not. Ryan has done nothing inappropriate. JDG 08:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam J. Pearce

How is this guy notable? I would not expect to find his entry in any encyclopedia pertaining to any degree of completeness. Regards, Cdyson37 23:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that was fast! KK will do, the zeal of antivanitism got to me! Cdyson37 00:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Race and intelligence (Public controversy)/Galton Report

We need to delete this page, which is purely source material and never should have been uploaded here. (And the title is poorly formed). I noticed you'd deleted a speedy tag. Though it is not a 100% proper tag, the original uploaded applied it. There's no significant edit history (except for the tags). We could VfD it, but that seems like overkill. How do you suggest we proceed? Thanks, -Willmcw 01:17, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

RfC on Monicasdude

Started at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude. Please help certify it and flesh it out.

I think your involvement in this has not been as productive as it could be. I think it would be appropriate, for one, to indicate that you are not offering to provide formal mediation in the sense of Wikipedia:Mediation because you are not a member of the Mediation Committee, which only takes up mediation through its own process. Second, you passed over a clear opportunity to get this under control. Monicasdude asked whether NPOV was self-sufficient as a controlling policy, guideline, or principle; if that point is contended, which you appear to believe, the simple answer is to say that lack of agreement as to this point is exactly why you are offering your good offices. There was certainly more than one way to say no, and I have to say that I believe the way you chose to say it reflects poorly on you. By meeting an objection put as a question with a solicitation of an RfC, you appear to be railroading Monicasdude (I don't think this is the case in fact, but read on about the implications taken away by Lulu and JDG), which unnecessarily impugns your impartiality and, more importantly, forecloses on the easier option of informal mediation; a more severe measure like an RfC undermines the good faith that is preferred to cement a solution and continued participation in Wikipedia by all involved parties. The fact that JDG is posting on Lulu's page talking about a ban tells me that the situation is being allowed to run out of control. I would offer that you ought to intercede again with a mediation offer to forestall an RfC. Buffyg 21:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not respond to other comments on my talk page. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry. I just had you on the watchlist, since I had commented here. And I saw the comment by Buffyg that made statements about my own likely perceptions. I thought I'd clarify in the same place; but I'll snip it out now, and put it over on Buffyg's talk page. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:04, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

I added this sentence to my description: I accept the conclusion that Monicasdude's behavior does not qualify as vandalism. I want to make it clear that an allegation of vandalism is not part of my RfC complaint. However, I continue to believe that Monicasdude's edits constitute bad faith, so I do not withdraw that aspect. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:11, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

Latest wrinkle

As you have, I have been attempting to format the RfC according to the RfC guidelines. In part this is putting all of the signed comments Monicasdude has scattered throughout the RfC into his response section. Unfortunately, just like with the article that started this, he is doing exactly the same thing: blind and automatic reversion of any change I make, accompanied by rude comments in the changelog. In no case, of course, have I removed any single word that Monicasdude wrote, but just changed the structure to match an RfC. Do you think there's any chance you can do anything to put the format right? Or should I just give up with Monicasdude deciding the RfC is also "his personal page?" Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:16, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

Melechesh

What about CSD7? brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well don't close our wiki :P

Empty accusations

Please do not come on my talk page and accuse me of doing things I have not done. I have not added any commercial links or any links to my own private website. The only links used are those used as references as required by Wikipedia policy in order to avoid copyright violations. I will not discontinue adding content or references where they are required. If you are going to make accusations, you need to be able to back them up. Uriah923 15:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you wait more than 2 minutes before suggesting deleting a page?

I was working on the article on the Michelle Thomas character from Matlock, and not 2 minutes later, you put it up for deletion! Can you wait so that I can add content before doing that? It actually takes time to write an article. Patience is a virtue, last I heard. And I think many articles started small - did you suggest deleting them too, or did you give them a chance to get larger? I apologize for my terseness, but give me a break. --JamesR1701E 06:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SubstBot

Any news on the autosubster? R adiant _>|< 16:41, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm not much of a botscripter myself. You might try asking User:AllyUnion though, if he's got time. R adiant _>|< 07:41, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

James Dean

Would you please have a look at the James Dean article. User:Wyss is ignoring the additional sources I am presenting which undoubtedly support my view. He has repeatedly reverted my version of the text without discussing the facts. Onefortyone 00:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest an RfC. Wyss 00:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why User:Wyss is constantly denigrating all independent sources (books, articles, etc.) which undoubtedly support my view. This user is biasedly suppressing facts. Onefortyone 00:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to clutter Ryan's talk page any further than to say 141's sources have been extensively examined and discussed on the associated talk pages and have proven to be mostly fabricated one way or another, with one or two remaining items looking more like sloppy research based on the former. Wyss 00:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Wyss, this is what you frequently claim, but it is not true. And you already know that. I have cited several independent sources supporting my view, among them Gavin Lambert's Wood biography and a recent Dean biography. You are unable to provide sources which prove that these sources are wrong. Furthermore, look at the biased wording Wyss uses in the said paragraph. Onefortyone 00:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crowns and rebels

Hi Ryan, you recently took the speedy delete off Crowns and rebels, stating it was "not a speedy". I think I might claim otherwise: it appears to be a vanity page and the site it links to seems to be non-notable. The creator of the page was, prior to this, vandalising Kings of Chaos, and created two pages Century 21 (real estate), and an earlier Crowns and rebels, both of which were speedily deleted as being nonsense/vanity pages. (They appeared to be referring to the creator's parents). Thanks, --BillC 00:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find such other users actions rude and unsettling.

I find other users blatently stupid actions rude and unsettling but I aint complaining. --Arm 16:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and further more you can use the WP:Civil link on me all you want but your being hypocritical by not following Wikipedia guidelines too. For what I mean, read this. --Arm 05:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia widow

As its author and after further reflection and under more sober circumstances I have tagged this article for speedy deletion as I believe it meets the criterion of General article 7 (1.2.7) at WP:CSD. Why do you disagree? hydnjo talk 22:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I created this article during a whimsical moment. I'm not a vandal and I prefer to go "by the rules". I have nominated this article for speedy deletion because I feel that it meets the criterion mentioned above. If you feel that the article deserves the scrutiny of this community for several days then I would only ask for you rationale. Thanks, hydnjo talk 23:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bot approval

Please request for any approval at Wikipedia talk:Bots. --AllyUnion (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter trolling

Ryan, for my edification in regards AfDs, just wondering why you'd voted keep here? Thanks—encephalon έγκέφαλος 08:33:56, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

Thank you Ryan. I understand the sentiment. I voted delete myself because the reference base for the article seems to me to be original research, of a kind. A possible exception to this is the Encyclopedia Dramatica reference, although I'm hard-pressed to view that as substantial. Thanks.—encephalon έγκέφαλος 09:09:43, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

The Student Revolution novel

You're right it's not nonense. But I still think it should still be listed as speedy (non-notable, vanity or advert). I can't find any listings of the author Warrick Hutchinson. It looks like a promo for a first book. CambridgeBayWeather 09:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will do that. Still learning. CambridgeBayWeather 10:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Stop nominating schools" advice

Ryan Delaney,
I've noted that on several recent school AfDs you've encouraged people to stop nominating schools to AfD. I've posted my reply at the ones on my watch list (they showed up all in a block and raised my curiosity). I'd prefer not to wikistalk you (^_^) so can we discuss this here and stop posting our conflicting advice until we work something out?
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three people are in now - I'm going to locate/create a centralized discussion. Please hold any your thoughts. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease asking people to stop nominating school articles. It is an avenue to reach consensus on what should and should not be kept.Gateman1997 23:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subst Bot

Is there anything I can assist you with? --AllyUnion (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Town Records

Hi there. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Town records as a delete tonight, but only deleted its redirect, not the article itself. —Cryptic (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Science pearls

Hello,

Since you contributed in the past to the publications’ lists, I thought that you might be interested in this new project. I’ll be glad if you will continue contributing. Thanks,APH 11:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homecoming: Chickens Class of August 2005

Ryan, it's been weeks since I've last contacted you. I thought that as an admin you would want to be aware of some goings-on regarding a problem user, especially since you were involved in an early incident, and, in fairness to you, your name has now come up (but only tangentially).

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Imdaking

If school is keeping you busy or it's not a good time, I understand. I hate to tell you "I told you so" about this individual, but... I told you so. Sorry if it comes as bad news. paul klenk 22:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. paul klenk 03:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspam

Hi, you participated in discussions about this issue. He apparently won't give up until he is banned forever. Do you mind signing the consensus statement if you agree with it? Thanks - Taxman ^Talk 19:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spanking

Hi there Ryan! I was wondering why you didnt block Mcmansionman there by Riven? You are a Sysop, cant you block the bugger with unmatching socks? Banes 20:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bmicomp's RfA

Well, my RfA has not quite completed yet, but either way, I'd like to thank you for your vote and your support, regardless of the outcome. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-protect Dylan page

Somebody (I didn't quite track down who, but it looks like it was some Redwolf24 guy who's not even an Admin) unprotected Bob Dylan. Will you please re-protect? I think the RfC on Monicasdude will be wrapping soon and we can talk about lifting the block then. Thx. JDG 05:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind-- just did it myself. Wouldn't be surprised if somebody comes along and undoes it just because I was the one protecting. In that case I hope you're prepared to step in. JDG 21:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update... as expected, Mdude leaped. Could you please protect? JDG 23:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi. Thanks for reverting the anon AOL vandal's attacks on my talk page. I only wish that the idiot would realise that I never see his work unless I go looking for it, thanks to the efforts of good folks like yourself, because he works in the middle of the night my time! -- Arwel 13:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)t[reply]

Bob Dylan

Hello Malathion. Long time no see... Anyways I was clearing out WP:PP of pages listed before September 1 in the 'real articles' section. Among these was Bob Dylan which you protected August 24th. So, I unprotected it. I had not read the full RfC, understandably, as RfC's can be rather tedious to read. I thought I would acknoweledge you of this since you had protected it. JGM pointed me out your recommendation and now I have reprotected it. Thanks, R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Too soon for unprotection (IMO)

I think it would be fine to unprotect this article so that we can see if the RFC had any effect on his behavior before RFAR is considered. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Between Monicasdude's below comment and his one edit during the brief unprotection, I definitely tend to think we're not ready for unprotection. Specifically, in [1], Monicasdude removes a perfectly good change by an anonymous editor stating "NPOV recent addition". The change by User:138.88.200.36 itself is probably unnecessary, since readers can follow the George Jackson link themselves. But the change is also definitely not POV. To my mind (which is suspicious on this matter, by this point, I admit), it is a slight hint of the same pushy editing pattern that utterly disrespects other editors. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty strange to unprotect right now, Ryan. Why do you talk about the RfC in the past tense? We are still awaiting Mdude's full response and I assumed we would then move on to a discussion of remedies. The outcome of that discussion would seem to be the right time to unprotect... But I won't raise a stink, whatever you do. This whole thing is getting very old and I'm drifting towards indifference. Mdude's laughing at it all. Basically, the project is stuck with a nimble bully who's going to waste heaps of people's time/energy in the disputes he kicks up, always staying just this side of actionable offense. What a drag. JDG 21:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

tildas

Thanks for the help with the tildas. I thought three were enough, but it looks like four is better. ;-) neoliminal 09:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dylan/Monicasdude RfC

I find your string of prejudgments -- most recently, your comments of user:Redwolf24's talk page -- in this matter offensive. You still have not identified any areas where, as you claimed, I insisted on my text in defiance of consensus -- and, as the comments of the RfC should make clear to an unbiased observer, the disputed text that user: Lulu has insisted on including is neither factual nor undisputed, with a clear majority of those commenting opposing it. It should also be clear from the comments on the RfC that there are clearly two sides on this dispute, and that singling me out as the principal cause of the editorial dispute simply casts a blind eye to the clear misbehavior of others. Monicasdude 15:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Manuel Abras

Sorry about that. I am a friend of Juan Manuel Abras and tried to create an entry on him, but I am quite newby and I did it the wrong way. How can I delete the entry (is corrupted) and start it from scratch? Thanks in advance. Fernando

Shafi3i

Ryan, you were "on the case" with the anon who kept blanking the Qur'an article, so I wonder if you could help me convince User:Shafi3i not to linkspam. He has decided that many of the smaller Islam-related articles are not religiously correct, and that readers should be directed to the sunna.info website. He linkspammed; I reverted; he is busily replacing the linkspam, while informing me on my talk page that he MUST correct the inaccuracies in the articles with his links. I have asked him to revise the articles, but ...

I am indeed tired and cranky (a busy day reverting vandalism and linkspam) and it's possible that I'm not doing the best job of communicating with him. I might even be wrong. If you have the energy and the time, see what you can do about the situation. Zora 04:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

User was in fact warned at User_talk:65.188.118.24. --Howrealisreal 20:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for letting me know. I will take that into consideration. But on a side note (and please forgive me if I come across as obtuse): It is also against wikipedia policy to make personal attacks against editors, and the user in question (both logged in an anonymously) had the nerve to write me back after reverting the edits to Declaration of Independence and say that he/she had the right under the Freedom of Speech to insert garbage, then referred me to read the Independence article to understand his "rights" as a vandal. It doesn't seem fair to me that in trying to improve the quality of this encyclopedia I get no support from the admins and told I am in fact incorrect. --Howrealisreal 20:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It does help. Thanks again. --Howrealisreal 21:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that same user continues to harass me under various usernames. --Howrealisreal 20:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR rule break by Monicasdude and vandalising my talk page

Hi Ryan,

I've been following the case against Monicasdude - having been targeted by him over the summer - and today while improving and updating Live at The Gaslight 1962, he broke the 3RR by ignoring my additions and undoing everything to bring it back to what he prefers without even listening to my reasons. I removed a few of the external links that were direct links to his OWN webpages of unsubstantiated and unsourced material (not to mention self-promotion). Can something be done about his difficult behaviour? Perhaps - from what I've read at the Rfc on his case - a block? He's also gone to my talk page to vandalize it after I've done cleaning. It's just not proper. BGC 23:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ryan. Much appreciated. BGC 00:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

It ain't vandalism,its called writing the truth.Look it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.230.105 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 21 September 2005

Delete?

Hey there. Thought I'd let you know that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G0ys as a delete, but the article is still lurking. I'd nobble it myself, only I was part of the debate. Thanks! -Splash^talk 13:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, you're probably right that it would be ok to do it myself in future, since I would cite the AfD you had closed in the deletion summary (and count mention your username, too). -Splash^talk 15:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being? If you're going to use some default message with such an undermining tone, tell me what page in particular you're peeved at me for not including an edit summary on. -- user:zanimum

With great thanks!

I bestow the PSI Award to polite, courteous, and helpful users. It is to be used in good mental health!

Thank you for reverting my page. Here is an aware for your efforts of service. I really appreciate it! Thanks again. Psy guy ^(talk) 22:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for votin gin my Rfa. Rory Gould 22:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another AfD

Ryan, AfD/Charles Gauci seems to have been going on for ages, and recently has given rise to either an increase of sockpuppetry (if you take my word for it) or bad-faith insinuations of sockpuppetry against innocent people, er, against innocent nobles (if you don't). The AfD was first posted on 14 September. As I look through AfD/Log/2005 Sep 14 I see that, one way or another, you disposed of many of the other pleas for deletion posted on the same day; can I ask you to add this one more to your workload? -- Hoary 06:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Poole

Hi. Just thought you'd like to know that the idiot vandalising my user page has done it again, using a slightly different IP: 60.231.181.203 Time to ban this IP range, methinks. --Gene_poole 06:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Recent article creation

I certainly can't take credit for the terms used, but the article I "researched" myself, using:

http://suicidegirls.com/boards/Dirty+Talk/36230/

Enjoy reading. --Saaga 03:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page returns

You deleted SFr Asmodeus on September 23, 2005. It has now been re-created by User:71.110.89.194, who created the first article. I have listed it as a copyvio at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2005 September 24 - the article text is a direct copy of http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/techfs/ships/asmodeus.shtml.

-=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=-

Ken Butler

Hi, I just attempted to contribute to wikipedia for the first time by posting an article on Ken Butler. It got deleted very fast (I'm curious to know how it was even found so quickly!). I read the tutorial and article for first time users, and it appeared that my article had met all the requirements. I read the reason for deletion, but it didn't make sense to me. Please help me out.

63.228.204.23 00:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Brogan[reply]

Misattributions

Hi. In Talk:Royce_Gracie, after I made my comments about how I didn't see any significant POV, (and ended my comment with the proper Ex0pos 06:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC) ), I noticed that you subsequently made a change to the Talk page, by editing in my own signoff to an earlier paragraph by someone else, a paragraph that I did not write and had barely skimmed over.[reply]

Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that this was a rather bothersome thing to see... and I wanted to bring the mistake to your attention.

Still, as a mistake (presumably), no harm, no foul.

Peace,

Ex0pos 06:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

Hey, thanks for fixing that "edit this page link." I can't believe I missed that when I plagarized your talk page heading :). I appreciate your doing that. Yours, --Blackcap | talk 21:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the topic "Fernando (Juan Manuel Abras entry)" and put it on my page as it was intended to go to me, but due to the above error didn't. If you disagree with my doing this, please say so and I'll put it back. I'm really sorry for any trouble that my bad link may have caused, Yours, --Blackcap | talk 23:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"advertising"?

The liberteaser is, like any of the other "libertarian publication," an online libertarian publication. How is linking to it--in the external link section--"advertising"? Hammer of Truth, and a number of other blogs are on there (legitimately) as well. Back off, man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freemarkets (talk • contribs) 20:38, 28 September 2005

The reasons for my edits have been discussed hundreds of times on this page, and as long as the same person continues to make the same vicious edits, and snide remarks, I will revert back to pages that represent a neutral point of view, and include reasonable criticisms and citations to an objective record of Dr. Palmer's accomplishments. I don't see the value in continuing to rehash the same arguments for hundreds of "talk" pages. Dr. Palmer's intellectual enemies apparently have an enormous amount of time on their hands to spend it all at Wikipedia, vandalizing his page and using it as advertisement for their kooky web pages. I've merely reverted back to an objectively valid page, one approved by the subject of the page, and most of the page's viewers. Further, I haven't violated the "three reverts" rule, because I've only reverted back to a page twice since 9:30 this morning.-freemarkets

"Second Warning" indicates that I've broken a rule, and you've "warned" me not to twice. However, since I've clearly NOT broken any rule (having reverted to a page only twice in 24 hours, not three times, and certainly not "more than" 3 times, as the language requires), your "warning" hardly seems relevant. I know the rule; I don't need your warning. Until I break a rule, you shouldn't be deleting my reverts, etc.--freemarkets

Apologies, you'll have to be clearer. How can I have violated a policy that requires "more than" three reverts in 24 hours, when I've only reverted twice? Maybe I'm missing something; if so, please advise.--Freemarkets 03:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would refer you to the history of this page: the revert rule applied equally to others would result in the blocking of at least two others.

You refer to yourself, I see, as a "deletionist." I agree: the Palmer entry is essentially a resume that was written by the subject himself, and insert into Wikipedia if not by him than by his close associates. I have edited it, and focused on the most interesting aspect of the subject: his partisans have continuously reverted to the puff-piece version.

I can see from this incident that Wikipedia is not a valid "encyclopedia," and that there is no way to ensure quality, and so I shall not only cease participating in it, but will also stop linking to it in my work: I cannot in good conscience refer reads to a resource that is becoming little more than a collection of resumes.

According to baseball rules, if one has "more than 2 strikes" called against him while at bat, that player will be called "out." In other words, each batter is "entitled" to 2 strikes before being called "out." According to Wikipedia rules, if one edits a page "more than three times" in a 24 hour period, he is subject to being blocked. How is it, then, that that rule does NOT "entitle" an editor to "three reverts" without being called out? If one must break a rule to be blocked, and one cannot break the rule without reverting more than 3 times in 24 hours, then how have I violated the rule, and how would I be subject to being banned? Further, of what use is your warning?--Freemarkets 11:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]