User talk:Dr Debug/archive1

Archive 1 => Archive 2

Thanks for the kind words

Although you might want to rethink the use of the term "level headed" in reference to me.:) --WinOne4TheGipper 00:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Man!

Where did you get that Swamp Rat pic? I missed where it was posted originally! BenBurch 17:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfounded

I am not deleting whole pages and leaving blank content.

I am removing information that is not relavent and not notable.--RWR8189

You are removing random blocks from pages. That's blanking and the information is relevant. Dr Debug 05:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Revert Policy

Wikipedia policy states that you may not revert any article more than three times in the same day. This is a strict limit, not a given right; you should not revert any one article more than three times daily. See Wikipedia:Three revert rule for details on this. --RWR8189

I did revert not three times! It took three edits to revert your blanking. Check your facts and stop removing content from pages! Dr Debug 06:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ec5618

You recently voted unfavourably in my Request for Adminship, noting that I used 'aggressive language'. Though I can see how you might come to that conclusion, I don't think I agree. One of the outside views on that page read, in part:

"editor lodging this complaint of 'bullying' has [reverted] six times in a two hour span (and additional times in the 22 hours preceding) to censor revelations of his own bullying and general incivility, and that attempting to paint himself as an innocent victim of everybody else only further damages his credibility."

After signing this the outside view [1] my edits to that page were attempts to be helpful, if anything, [2], [3]. Note my remark: "It is hard to take your petition as anything but a veiled attack" in my last comment. This user latched onto that remark, took it out of context, and proceeded to demand I 'substantiate [my] allegations', giving me 24 hours in which to do so. He counted down the hours [4]. I my defense, I still don't see how my remark is agressive. A I said was that I certainly understand the floods of criticism being heaping upon this editor. It was meant as advise, a plea for this user to change his attitude. Nothing more.

This user has now taked to posting on wikipediareview, for which I am very sorry. I wish it had gone differently, certainly. I do not think, however, that my silence would have made that so. I maintain that I tried to help.

Since your main issue with me was my use of "extreme verbal aggression", I would appeciate you rethinking my Request. Thank you. -- Ec5618 09:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No. 11:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You are free to feel you have given my RfA enough thought, and you are free to believe that summarising the views expressed by others qualifies as a personal attack. You are also free to believe that by requesting others to read my clarifying statement, I am breaking unwritten rules of conduct.

I take issue however with your implication that Jim62sch defended me for reasons other than faith in my abilities. You disparaging use of the word 'friend' was uncalled for.

For the record, it seems my initial statement on my RfA was poorly worded, and I have since tried to explain my wording and my actions. Since it seems that a lot of voters got a wrong impression of me, I requested that they review my case again. I meant no disrespect, and I don't think I deserve to be brushed of with a brief no. Thank you. -- Ec5618 13:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly why people oppose you, because any critism is spun out of control and there is likelyhood to escalate into edit war. If you ask people whether you are suitable as an administrator then there will be critics and you should be to accept that some of your past actions aren't upto standard which is not a shame since that applies to most of us, however unless you manage to keep a distance and accept faults then I foresee a long stream of Bens and editwars but now with the possibility to ban and edit protected pages. Like so many others said as well, show that you have the ability acquired to accept critism and not escalate conflict.

An "Oppose" vote is based on a reasonable quick evaluation of recent behavior and in your case the behavior was not acceptable since it were not one-sided conflicts but two people who kept on pushing their view. The excuse that the other person was rude and a POV pusher and that your behavior was commendable is not true, because you participated in the escalation and managed to operate just on the edge of the rules and policies which meant that the other party often just crossed that edge. It also appears that you often work together with two other users in such conflicts which often leads to additional stress to the other person. With all the opposition to my oppose, I have had to look deeper into the matters and the more I look at it, the more I convinced I am about the correctness of the first evaluation.

This post in itself seems to indicate a willingness and readyness to make the "Oppose" into a conflict. The problem is not the wording on the RFA but the refusal to accept critism and the denial of any wrongdoing in the recent conflicts you have had. Maybe Philwelch didn't want to talk to you since you had indicated that you immediately wanted to revert his changes and there had been a recent 3RR about the fontsize on a template with edit summaries which showed that the conflict was more about a personal dislike than about whether it should be 10pt or 14pt. It does make you wonder whether the statement of wanting to edit protected templates was related to that conflict. Dr Debug (Talk) 15:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with your criticism, and I thank you for expounding your reasoning. It seems you have made up your mind, and have now done so through an actual review of my past. While I may disagree with your findings, or with your interpretation of same, I cannot fault you for lack of effort. Thank you.

I do take issue however with the fact that, as mentioned above, you alluded that Jim62sch defended me for reasons other than faith in my abilities. Again, your disparaging use of the word 'friend' was uncalled for.

Finally I take issue with your suggestion that part of the reason you oppose my request is that I have asked voters to reconsider. Consider that of the initial oppose votes, at least one thought I opposed different dialects, one opposed on the grounds that desiring the ability to edit protected pages is in itself reason to oppose. It seemed only fair to attempt to reason with these people, as they had gotten the wrong impression of me, and had misunderstood my statement. I take full responsibility for my rather ambiguous statement, yes, but I would surely be foolish to be refused Adminship based on a simple misunderstanding.

Again, I don't expect you to change your vote. Truly. -- Ec5618 16:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Newbie

I hope nothing I've said has caused him any concern. He has added some interesting material to the Bill Haley article but some of the stuff just needed some massaging (plus he was working with some outdated resources). I'll see what I can do over at the talk page. 23skidoo 20:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

... and solving my thumbnail problem. That's good to know going forward. --Mmounties 02:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to help!

Sorry for not yet beeing a registered user, as I got totally overtaken by finding out "bugs" (well, you're Dr Debug, so you know!) I hope to be able to register in the next few days, in the meanwhile you can always find me in this IP (if my router doesn't disconnect me!). Please let me know if anything is wrong with my editing practice, as has already been noticed by another admin (I've tried to put myself together, honest!) Anything else? Yes. Loving wikipedia! Ciao :) 82.54.167.161 03:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Question

DD, do you have special wiki administrator privileges? I ask because you reverted my deletion. -- JDMBAHopeful

Answered on your talk page. Dr Debug (Talk) 20:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Follow-Up

The reasoning for that deletion: No other similar org has such a detailed "Crimes" section (or any such section at all). The list of such orgs located in similar (or worse) locales is extensive. Should we add such detailed sections to all of those places or remove just this one, to be fair. otherwise, there is a clear bias at play. -- JDMBAHopeful

The point is that it is partially relevant, so completely eliminating is not correct either. I agree that listing and finding a lot of similar stories on other places is not the way forward. You can try putting in a counter argument especially since it is about seven events over three decades, so it has to be taken in perspective and that is more the WP:NPOV guideline. Dr Debug (Talk) 20:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank You!!

Hello, Dr Debug, and thank you for the warm welcome and the numerious links to the rules of wikipedia. I will be sure to look them over. :) (Mallaccaos)

Also

....As well as learn how to sign my name on talk pages.  :( (Mallaccaos)

You'll soon get the hang of that ;) ~~~~ You make great contibutions like Shaya. That's an excellent start. Dr Debug (Talk) 03:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Userpage revert

No problem. :)--Shanel 04:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Quote chars

Hi Dr Debug, the character in my edit summaries is supposed to be an angle bracket (but not the standard < character). I will try to use characters that are more widely supported. Can you tell me which of the items at User:Quarl/quotechars display correctly for you? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-02 06:57Z

Reply on talk Dr Debug (Talk) 12:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"Reverting"

Ah, cool, thanks for that. :) Gwenllian 12:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks man

thanks , i was really confused about that, now how do you make your page appear in the search index? For instance im working on this and, for some reason it wont appear in the search page when you put any terms that are like it up there —Preceding unsigned comment added by F1r3r41n (talk • contribs)

Reply on talk page. Dr Debug (Talk) 13:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from me also, for reverting vandalism on my user page. It's my "first time" and it's quite exciting :) --kingboyk 18:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a Good Idea

I'll add it right away! Oh, and if you think it was funny before, wait a few days... Karmafist 18:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In Terms of Links...

Thank You Dr Debug! I feel welcome and hope to make good use of myself at Wikipedia. Your links were very helpful by the way. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipediatrician (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the welcome

Thank you for welcoming me to wikepedia! --ericthefish 09:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Questions

Hi Dr. Debug,

Yes, I do have specific topics to discuss. For full disclosure, I work for Vector Marketing, the subject of this article. It is one of the most balanced articles I've ever seen on the internet regarding Vector. There are however, several factual errors. Also there are several areas where, in order to be fair, the company would like to add its response. It's very difficult to respond to non-specific allegations without the details needed for investigation. What process do you suggest?

Thanks, and BTW I'm totally with you on the Constitution thing. I couldn't even watch the SOTU speech, nor would I let my children watch, in part because I didn't want them to think "if the President can mispronounce words like "Noocular" why can't I?" Of course that's minor compared with the real issues... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahba (talk • contribs)

What you would do is according to company ... as far as putting in the response. Factual errors can be corrected, but it has to be a real error. In general the best thing is to keep both sides of the story. So keep the first part and then tell the story according to the view of the company. Dr Debug (Talk) 18:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you and especially for that four tildes idea. Nice. One thing I don't understand. I saw your "welcome to wikipedia" message on my discussion-talk page. but Now I want to respond to you. If i put my response to you only on MY discussion page, would you be alerted to that by wikipedia? i wasn't sure so i also put this thank you message on YOUR discussion page, to make sure you saw it. what's the way people should do things around here? should i have responded on MY or YOUR discussion page so that you get the msg? cheers GO WHARTON 20:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the software is that you only get the "You have a new message" when somebody responds on your own page, however that always gives fragmented message where you can only see one part. Most people like to continue the message where it was started (I do), however with new users, you have to check it again. There is a little trick, on the bottom of screen you can select "Watch this page". If you have selected that, it'll appear on your watchlist and that way you can check what is going on. It is also very good for articles which you have started and want to keep an eye out for. In this case I've responded on both ;) Dr Debug (Talk) 20:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Great ideas. you meant the "watch" on top of page, not bottom right? GO WHARTON 20:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

They are both the same. So you click it on the top of the page or below when you are editing it. Dr Debug (Talk) 20:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

oh, makes sense. thanks over and out GO WHARTON 20:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply to your message

This morning I checked my talk page and noticed your reply. However, when I clicked on "move" at the top of the page, it gave me this:

You cannot move pages because either you are not logged in, or your account is too new. In the latter case, please list the page at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Please do not attempt to "move" the page via copying and pasting its content, as that destroys the page's history.

Return to Main Page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Movepage"

Do you know how long it will take for the account to cease being "new"? In the last 4 days I've made about 50 edits and wrote several articles, and this obstruction is starting to depress me. Thanks for your time and effort! --Yunzhong Hou 13:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that either and can't find anything about it on the help pages. Dr Debug (Talk) 14:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Mike Inman

Hi, Debug. I came across Mike Inman as I was patrolling Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, and I think there are enough assertions of notability in the article to require a nomination on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion rather than a speedy delete. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Inman if you'd like to contribute your reasons that you originally thought it was non-notable. Thanks for your help! —Cleared as filed. 15:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Project

Hi, my name is Federico (alias Pain) and I am creating a section for nominating th best user page, I was wondering if you were interested in joining the project.

The project has just started, and we need help to spread the word and ameliorate it.

Best regards, Federico Pistono ✆ �? 16:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

S-Bahn_RheinNeckar_Netzplan_Kraichgau.jpg

You recently uploaded Image:S-Bahn_RheinNeckar_Netzplan_Kraichgau.jpg as a workaround for a bug affecting large PNGs. I've reuploaded the affected PNGs to Commons at a more reasonable resolution, and have deleted the JPG version you uploaded. I hope you don't mind. (I did keep a copy, so I can restore it if you want.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for helping with my table!

That was exactly what I was looking for. Hopefully a lot of football fans will get some use out of the new, streamlined template. Thank you very much! Nach0king 23:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and Redirections

Dr Debug Thanks for the answers, I really appreciate it. I have redirected Garingan to Garindan. Again, thanks a whole lot! Wikipediatrician 13:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Wikipediatrician

Sorry

Hello Dr Debug,

It would appear that I have done something that upsets you and I have been banned.

I was not meaning to upset anybody. This is my first time here.

I was looking through some of the telecommunications related articles and thought that I would add links to reports published on www.totel.com.au

If this is against the rules I'm truely sorry as I only did it to provide another source of information to readers. I could not find anything in the rules about adding informative links to further information on the related subject matter.

Again I'm sorry. Please be assured that I will not do it if it is against policies.

Kind Regards

Totel 14:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)TOTEL

Answered on your talk page ( User_talk:Totel ) Dr Debug (Talk) 14:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add the same link.. I added a link to the relevant page for the subject matter.. No problem though. I will not add/ edit any content in Wikipedia in future. I was going to spend some time and "correct" some of the "mistakes" on telecommunications subjects but I will fill my days elsewhere. A glaring mistake that you may want to get somebody to research and correct is under the subject "Optus". It states that they first started offering long distance services. In fact when Optus first launched commercial service in 1992 their first product was re-selling Telstra's AMPS mobile service. Their second product offering was GSM. Long distance products were not added to the product portfolio until 1994. Have a good day. Totel

OI!!

YOu have deleted my long time writing article about the Kingdom of Kahbah!!

We made a mistake earlier and said we had 45 citizens when we currently have 4500 aprox. If you want to see our site go to www.kahbah.tk please dont delete it again!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingKieranI (talk • contribs)

Replied on talk page Dr Debug (Talk) 18:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

OI!!

well if we cant do that then take a look at lovely! eh?????

(...swearing removed...)

Rudy Pompilli / Rudi POMPILII

Hi alligator :-), Unaware of his true name? Rudy, before he died, asked Haley to re-write properly his family name on his tomb...See you later :-) Stephan KŒNIG 18:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Much better in this form...Stephan KŒNIG

Bill Haley live on stage, Liège 14/05/1974  :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bill_Haley_-_programme_du_concert_%C3%A0_Li%C3%A8ge_le_14-05-74.jpg Stephan KŒNIG 19:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi!

Thanks for the wellcoming Debug!

If it happens that you have edit rights for blocked pages, could you replace in the article < Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy >, section < Islamic tradition > this < (verses 41 and 52) > by < (ex.: 5:92, 21:52) >? It would make things clearer. Thanks. Abjad 02:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that I have no knowledge on the matter, so you are asking me to make a change without knowing whether it is correct or not. The best thing to do is to discuss it on the talk page of the article. Dr Debug (Talk) 02:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi (About 'Around The World')

The Ami Suzuki album and single is oficially called "AROUND THE WORLD", Japanese artist always uses capitalizated titles for some of their songs, It's not my idea to capitalize the title at all xD Clouded 04:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: 4BC

Okay, but it seems to me we should change our calendar back then...

--RabbidRabbis 04:51, 6 February 20062002 (UTC)

Very impressed

I was very impressed to receive a welcome message after only having three edits, one to my user page and two to my monobook.js file. As you might expect, this is a new account for an experienced Wikipedian -- I'm actually an admin but I'll refrain from disclosing my true identity. I'm not using this for sockpuppet purposes, but just in case I ever pick up a wikistalker. Anyway, thanks again for your attention to the new user log. :) BrownCow &#149; (how now?) 07:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Very impressed too...

for your warm welcome! Thanks a lot to you and bye bye France where some admins told I was at least a "pirate": stealer, falsifying copyrights, liar and other bad things like that... In my opinion, some guys were jealous about my knowledges about many kinds of music! Stephan KŒNIG 17:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

NL label shot - e-mail to Tommy Page: failure

US (C) is "for any purpose" but don't know nothing about it in The Netherlands  :-) Stephan KŒNIG 17:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC) About The Jodimars Boîte de réception

KOENIG Stephan  à tpage002, moi 
 Autres options   17:41 (il y a 26 minutes ago) 

Good evening Mr. Page, I just saw a website where I found the following information: The Jodimars 1956 - 1959 As it is still well known, your band began to play at the summer of 1955 and recorded his first 45 rpm record for Capitol back in Nov. 1955. I bought 2 of them ("Well now" and "Annie" [in fact, at least a dozen] back in January 1982 in Belgium: I knew lotta morons... I was very pleased to write you these few lines. What about your health? And what about the other members? Nice to hear from you, And "crazy man, crazy" :-) Stephan (KOENIG), US Wikipedian

PS: sorry for the word "refugees" but McCallum wrote it about 35 years ago...: can you tell me what really happened with Bill and Danny? Do have any information about the Imperial 45 rmp record released on Lew Judd's Imperial label issued in 1958 as by Marshall Lytle and The Jodimars?

Meilleures salutations, All the best from Belgium, Freundliche Grüße aus Belgien, Saluti migliori dal Belgio, Recuerdos de Bélgica,

Spam

WP:AN/I so that someone with acessrights on the spam blacklist can sort the problem.Geni 19:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

deletions

Well Good afternoon.. I would state that articles on individuals in the adult, porn and erotic film industries should be left as is if they are more than just an ad. After all, the urge to delete or mark "insignificant " is highly subjective and when dealing with people who have been a part of the intrests at hand for over 20 years could be interpeted as ignorant of the history of subject, no matter how obscure the participants in it's origin. Isn't this the true value of wikipedia? The ability to incorporate into the collective knowledge those pieces of the puzzle that would haev otherwise remained unknown? Or is it just to become a listing of "your" favourite information as "you " see it? Open your mind, and steady that deletion tag hand a bit... when "probably" is used as a justification to excorcize knowledge, I think censorship is definately not far behind. This area of history and present evolvement has no known experts and it is being written as we read. where are your credentials and do you need them? I say you do not ..unless you are denying us all of the ability to review and learn on our own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinggism (talk • contribs)

Any discussion about deleting is done on the deletion pages. Dr Debug (Talk) 21:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me...

Why you refuse to let me delete MY OWN comments on the nohomers.net deletion discussion article. I had a change of heart and yet I am not allowed to take them off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpion0422 (talk • contribs)

You committed fraud on an official page. It is not a fun page and you deleted my comment as well and I have no intention of removing that for a vandal. Dr Debug (Talk) 03:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My comment WAS a serious comment, but I changed my mind and decided that I would no longer vote on the issue and yet I am not allowed to remove it? And what happens if I change my mind and I decide to vote yes, will you just change it back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpion0422 (talk • contribs)

You seem to be focusing on me for no reason. Please stop. I am a frequent editor on other pages, plus I always use Wikipedia. Please just let me delete my comments instead of filling up the article with us battling eachother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpion0422 (talk • contribs)

Your only contribution to Wikipedia have been vandalism. You are a not a frequent editor. You can't even sign your name. Dr Debug (Talk) 03:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That's because I just recently registered. Check out the article for Canada's Walk of Fame. I have done it under two different IP addresses, but still. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpion0422 (talk • contribs)

Besides, how can it be a constructive comment in a serious discussion if the person who made it takes it back but you still force it? Please, just end this and let me delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.48.76 (talk • contribs)

The next I see you or your IP vandalise a page then you're in big problem. And I'll be keeping an eye out on you. Dr Debug (Talk) 03:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So I am allowed to delete my comments? Thank you. It was a bad idea, I will do no more vandalism. And I didn't know that you were supposed to sign after every comment. (And I apologize as well for troubling you){{Scorpion0422}}

You can't delete comments in an AfD. You can strike them out, but they go on record. Besides a person with a known history of vandalism is not relevant as far as a vote goes. Dr Debug (Talk) 03:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Notifying about an apparent sock puppet

Hi. Just wanted to give a head's-up about User:Becos. He appears to be yet another sock puppet of IPs 130.91.45.219, 130.91.44.181 and 130.91.45.232, who has continually made roughly the same wholesale changes to whitewash Brooklyn Technical High School and may be the anonymous user leaving long, self-justifying messages on the Brooklyn Tech Discussion page about why he is leaving such non-NPOV puffery as

With state-of-the-art computer classrooms, its location in a popular neighborhood, and the support of its alumni, Brooklyn Technical High School is poised for greatness to come as we begin this new century.

and

After 13 years, the school was ready for new leadership and new ideas. While longevity is certainly good for stability, in a changing world there needs to be new ideas.

and consistently removing quoted New York Times, NY Daily News and other periodicals' investigative findings about the principal, who retired Feb. 6 due to corruption (confirmably requiring him to repay the Bd. of Ed. $19,000, one of the many facts this vandal keeps deleting). I'm putting this on the User:Becos page for notification. Thanks. Look back over the history of these changes -- and of the new-user status, and of the fact he's edited nothing else -- and you'll see a pattern that makes one suspect cronyism or the ex-principal himself I've notified an Admin, who has blocked the IPs, but he keeps coming back. I guess this kind of thing happens a lot. Thanks! - Tenebrae 03:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Debug, I do not know whether I appreciate being called a sock puppet, considering I have no idea what it means. It seems I am up against a devoted group of individuals who have a distinct jargon. If you read my constructive comments to on Tech's discussion site Mr. Tenebrae you'd realize the simple logic that is involved with this article. Mr. Tenebrae seems not to understand parallel logic. I explain to him that his content is not appropriate for a school's website (please read my comments on the discussion page of Brooklyn Tech for more details). You see when Mr. Tenebrae accuses me of editing nothing else, he forgets that I was the one to fix up the Tech article on Wikipedia, but at the time I was unfortunately not registered. I put up my original copy under the discussion section. It seems as well that Mr. Tenebrae is content on using his close connection of administrators to attack me. Also, let us be honest, right now McCaskill or supporters of him could care less what an easily edited encyclopedia online will say. I have already contacted Wikipedia and another admin named Sceptre, who have told me to stay put while they read my comments. See the issue is what belongs on a school's website, and I am sure you would agree with me that it is information pertinent to that school. A principal's lack of leadership would surely be pertinent if he was still in command. Fortunately, he has left and therefore the problems of him being at the helm are gone. I have suggested, since Tenebrae contests that McCaskill is a public figure, then he deserve his own article, and since Tenebrae seems to have a hot passion about the man, then he should set one up with all of the details that he wants, thus honoring him with his own biography. Then people who care about reading up on a school and not a personal biography can go to the other site. However, now what Tenebrae is arguing is that those facts need to be up there for institutional change. I find that comical considering the institution that wanted change was Tech and the institution that kept him there was the district and NYC DOE. Thus, his gripe lies with them, not with the school, and it would be to much benefit to attack their institution rather than my alma mater's. Dr. Debug, if you knew the opportunities the school offered to me and the fond memories it created you would understand. To continue to be attacked by someone who cannot prove to have any connection to my institution is actually quite hurtful. I do not preponder to know the doings and ongoings of stuff like comic books that Tenebrae writes about on Wikipedia. It would be a great disservice to go on his sites and write articles of scandals involving those comics, without knowing what they are about or even if they are pertinent. Without Tenebrae establishing a connection with this institution, I must say then that he is, unfortunately, not fit to comment. However, I find that highly doubtful, considering his passion. I hesitate to judge quickly, and passions without purpose are for fools. I do not think Tenebrae is a fool. However, I will not continue to engage in circuitous logic. Also I have erased the some of the lines and added other to please Tenebrae. He seems more concerned with McCaskill then he is about the school. I have no reason not to continue action. In the coming days I will contact people about this atrocity and the populous will be heard. Tenebrae speaks about concensus, but unfortunately the people who care do not know about this site and I will direct attention to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Becos (talk • contribs)

Dr Debug, you wrote to me that my addition has nothing to do with the previous story. This is correct, but does no one understand that the story that is currently there has no relation to the school. Does congruence in stories trump relevancy. I was intrigued by the lack of information on the article this past summer. Now I notice why no significant indiividual would contribute to this site. I have been warned by others of the biased behavior of the internet. Neutral means telling both sides fairly. For a school's website, concerning a school, a man's profile should not trump the school. I will work instead with the revamping of the actual Tech website and the Alumni Association's website to bring about the appropriate information to the public. McCaskill has done enough harm to the school, I will not continue to let him do it on this website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Becos (talk • contribs)

Both sides of the story means that you cannot delete whole sections and replace it with stories about how great the school is. Find a compromise with the user on the talk page of the article first before reinserting your story over and over again. Dr Debug (Talk) 18:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Why am I the one who is constantly being attacked. I incorporated all the information and still you and Tenebrae are refusing to present my information. I wish to take off all the information from the Tech website considering it is my intellectual property. Any course of action to put it up again must come from me. I wrote the history, I added some links, why do I get no credit or say. I have never been this insulted nor locked out of an organization like this in my entire life. I have never met a collective group of individual who conduct themselves in this manner. Neither compromise nor appeasement will do for you. Is there no fair arbitrator? Now I'm not only being restricted on the article page but also on the discussion. I am sorry I cannot express myself in the few words that everyone else seems to be capable of. I thought that discussion should include well thought out arguments. I am warning Wikipedia, that the history preceding the Tech in the 21st Century is my property and due to my research, and I can remove it at anytime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Becos (talk • contribs)

Sigh. The problem is about content. Sorry for the insults, but the entry is not deemed suitable by two people and writing extremely long stories while reinserting the same changes is not appreciated in general. And you cannot remove any stories because you are the owner, because in GFDL there are no owners. See: WP:OWN so everything you have donated to Wikipedia and which was accepted cannot be taken back, since there is no owner anymore and you agreed to those terms when you added the information. (See: Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License) Dr Debug (Talk) 23:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Had I known all this, I would never have given you the work. Basically, the fate of this site rests in people who have never stepped into this building. The wonderful feeling that I had entering the building everyday as a student is obviously not known amongst the individuals contributing here. I have never been so flustered and felt so powerless in my entire life. My recommendations to create a separate bio site for the man went unheeded. You wrote to me that I am trying to squash criticism. Against whom I ask? Against Tech? Tech isn't at fault. I already told you that the criticism belongs to those who kept him in power at the NYC DOE. I am trying not to squash criticism, in fact I had no problem with it except when he recently retired. I felt the curse had been lifted, but I gather that Wikipedia will not let this curse go away. Congratulations, on behalf of 40,000 proud Brooklyn Tech alumni I congratulate this site. However, I will start contacting friends in the next few days and they will show who is the concensus here. Two individuals cannot squash the hopes of thousands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Becos (talk • contribs) (* emphasis mine. no need to reply Dr Debug (Talk) 00:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC) *)