User talk:Gator1/Archives/February 2006

Thank you

For your kind support of my Rfa, which passed. If you should ever have any complaints about my admin actions, please let me know. Also, should you ever need my help with anything, please do not hesitate to ask! Thanks again! All the best Banez 17:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA Coordinator Election

Dear AMA Member,

You are entitled to vote in the AMA Coordinator election, set to begin at midnight on 3 February 2006. Please see the pages on the election and its candidates and the procedure and policy and cast a vote by e-mail!

Wally 11:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bonaparte

Check the latest exploits by an editor who you voicefully defend. --Ghirla | talk 18:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious

"It'll just upset you and lead to more exclamaton points." I had to laugh when I read that! Very amusing... — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Laura

I am quite open-minded about how we will provide authentic and unambiguous documentation to the notable fact already included in Dr. Laura's article. Please provide a proposition to how we are going to provide the reader with clear and convincing evidence to support the assertion. I also added two additional, significant asssertions pertaining to (and continuing in their on in relevance in their own right) that first assertion. I want the reader of the article to be absolutely rock-solid convinced of that first assertion, and it is our job to provide the most convince and easily-accessible evidence. No need to have porn links for every Playboy bimbo at Wikipedia, but this is a special case, is it not? It is. -- Pinktulip 17:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Her "boyfriend" at the time claimed that it was her ubitquitous role as Morality and Integriy maven, and the profound extent of the Hypocracy that her media role represents, that drove him to violate her privacy and Trust so thoroughly as to release those photos onto the Internet, to be preserved forever, even long afer everything else about her is forgotten. -- Pinktulip 18:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do I want? I want my citation put back in the article, of course! You label of it as a "pornography link" is quite subjective. -- Pinktulip 19:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. That is sufficient for the forseeable future (which, in my book, is about a year or so) for this special lady. I thank you for the reasonable compromise you have created for our mutual benefit and satisfaction. -- Pinktulip 19:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus the trial

Hello

Could you please contribute to the discussion about the trial, instead of simply revert my changes. I did discuss them! Thanks

Oub 15:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC):[reply]

Left Behind

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. RexNL 20:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Article

Muslims only reject that Jesus was God by nature; He was among closest to God. Why "only" human is POV? Please let me know. Aminz 22:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badly written user page

Shouldn't it be "A Maine attorney"? Not "An Maine attorney"?(Khan 13:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Oh, I didn't take it personally, you didn't did you? I was just annoyed because I was in the middle of editing it to make it sound more wiky & less conversation, but I dont think I will bother its a little bit too detailed for a general USA article.(Khan 14:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Im serious! I didnt take it personally, I mean I guess I did take it a little bit, but I was annoyed I didnt complete it to make it sound right & you were right anyway(when you edited it). I had a smile on my face when I wrote that message to you :) Thats the very annoying thing about emails & the net certain jokes & sarcasms are not often correctly interpreted, ive been guilty of misinterpretation myself(Khan 14:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Maine Coone

How much does your cat weigh? I have two psycho Abyssinians myself, I saw a Maine Coone at a Cat show last fall & I was horrified by its size, Im sure it could eat a dog!(Khan 14:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Jesus

Gator, did you actually intend to revert to the Robsteadman's version? Paul B 16:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's already blocked for 48....[1]...maybe now peace will reign for at least a couple of days now anyway.--MONGO 17:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Style of Excellency for Maine Governor

Source I wasn't trying to be POV, I was making a good faith edit. Sorry if I offended you.--67.86.107.46 21:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

behind your back

"Also, please don't say such mean and baseless things behind someone's back like "

Actually, your talk page was my starting point. I was going to talk to you directly. But your deletions of Sophia's comments discouraged me from talking to you -- out of fear that you would simply not listen, delete them, then accuse me of personal attacks. [2][3].

"if you actually edited the page every so often."

One of the reasons why I do not is because of your monopoly over this page. I would rather avoid it than get into a conflict with you, or have my contributions reverted.

"I work well with anyone who is willing to be civil and work towards a compromised solution"

Your choice to quickly delete my contributions on the Schlessinger article, as well as Sophia's comments, without replying to either, suggests otherwise. I've always believed actions speak louder than words, or, more frankly: talk is cheap.--Muchosucko 21:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gator, I am not fuming. Quite the contrary. I am simply pointing out that, while your style of editing does not break the rules, it is confrontational and off-putting. And, if that style is systematically negative, there will be a consensus among other users. That might be happening now.--Muchosucko 21:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I've given you an opportuity to present your edits on the Dr.Laura page. Please do so."

Gator, this is part of the problem. I believe the spirit of Wiki allows anyone to contribute anything at anytime to the Dr. Laura page, regardless of whether you have given them the opportunity or not. Your perspective as the overseer of this article is thus skewed. You do not need to convince me that you work well with others on my talk page, I am seldom swayed by an airy word. Your edits and reversions will speak for themselves.--Muchosucko 22:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is actually iinterested in seeing the horrible thing I did to this guy, feel free to see [4]. Oh yeah, I'm a really hard to work with. lol. God forbid I just ask for a cite, then provide it myself and then he gets what he wants...I'm such a villain....unbelievable lies. I'm hurt because it seemed that we had solved the minor issue with both of us walking away happy and then this...Gator (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gator, you sound like a (deleted personal attack). Kids in the playground avoid (deleted personal attack)as much as they can. That is why I walked away. (deleted personal attack)are also insensitive to other people's feelings, which is perhaps why you thought everything was OK between us. Again, I believe your character will show itself in the long run, through your edits and contributions, not a dialogue on talk pages. If your attitude is systematically negative, some consensus will build. If you are systematically positive, my criticisms will be an anomaly. --Muchosucko 22:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, if anyone actually looks at what you're talking about they'll see that things went very well between us and you got what you wanted with a good and agreed upon cite.'Then you have nothing to be afraid of.--Muchosucko 22:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we can agree.....I think....that was weird....oh well.Gator (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You specialise in misunderstanding - since when is "as things get nasty" an attack on you? I have never been embroiled in personal attacks on talk pages before - I was referring to that. Since you ran off to an admin who decared me a sock I don't happen to count that as a "nice" time. Maybe you are used to this sort of thing - I'm not. What no one seems to realise is that clearing the ground for the faithful will only undermine the integrity of the article. That was why I edited - to improve the article.I feel that that is getting lost in all this mess. I wish you well with the editing - life should be simpler for you (and for me to be honest) so no doubt you have achieved your objective. No doubt this won't last long before you delete it. SOPHIA 14:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets

User:SOPHIA is the sock or vice versa of User:TheShriek [5] if that matters to you. I see no reason you can't remove unwanted jargon from your usertalk, but unlike your userpage, it isn't supposed to be just your zone. Even so, our userpages are only on loan to us by Wikipedia anyway, but as I said, if something on YOUR talk page seems offensive, then I see no reason you have to tolerate it.--MONGO 07:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are husband and wife and thus share the same IP. SOPHIA's recent comment on Robsteadman's page makes me fear that the sockpuppet allegations may have chased her off of Wikipedia. Pity. archola 06:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RfA. It was successful and I hope to be a good administrator. Essexmutant 11:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Article, Second Paragraph

I've added a section to the talk page to see if we can get a consensus on what the paragraph should say. If enough of us then are satisfied, we can avoid endless debates with proponents of one view or another, revert with a polite reference to the discussion and be done with it. Everyone is invited to come. --CTSWyneken 14:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with it, but not sure others can. As tempted as I am to say "howl fierce as they will," I'd like to get at least Sophia on board, if not Rob, too. --CTSWyneken 15:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see what happens. Stand back! 8-) --CTSWyneken 15:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to act as a sort of moderator, so I want to hold back a bit. Also, I can live with the paragraph in either your form or its current incarnation. I like your brevity, but I think we're in a better place to defend it if we include the reasons. --CTSWyneken 16:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Let's see how others carry the ball. As far as I can tell, only two of the bunch here are likely to insist. --CTSWyneken 16:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your message: possibly. I understand the need to appease people like Robsteadman in order to avoid yet another edit war, but too much prominence is being given to fringe views that in any other article would either be mentioned only in passing or not at all. While a number of people may doubt the divinity of Jesus, very few people (and no notable historians to my knowledge) claim Jesus never existed. We've already tried this appeasement route, adding a caveat to the scholarly-view paragraph that continues to grow. It's gone from simple lack of documents to now mentioning "similarities with various mythological figures." Based on WP:NPOV, we, by policy, are not even obligated to mention these small minority views, at least not in such a prominent place as the introduction in a biographical article. —Aiden 18:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

File:Plunger 250x410.jpg

Thanks for taking the time to vote in my RfA, which passed with a final vote of 54/2/1 despite my obvious inadequacy for the job. I'll do my level best to use the mop and bucket — or, as I said in my RfA, plunger — responsibly. Of course, in the best tradition of politicans everywhere, I've already broken a campaign promise (I blocked a vandal last night despite having said "I don't anticipate using the blocking tool very often"). Nevertheless, I'll try not to let the unbridled power corrupt me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?

What makes sense? Badagnani 18:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, the malta thing. Okay. Badagnani 18:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob

Robsteadman seems to confuse Atheism (a viewpoint) with rationalism (a method), and also seems to confuse cultural spiritualism with Theistic faith. I've seen atheists go even farther on the 2nd point than Rob, but this is quite beside Atheism vs. Theism. Even User:Flamarande, another Atheist, has admonished Rob to "know yourself and respect others." I (and others) have attempted to engage Rob in a rational debate, but I will of course get nowhere as long as Rob believes that rational Theism is an oxymoron.

Now, either Rob is a pseudoskeptic or he is misunderstood--and Rob is not the only one who believes that Rob may have been misunderstood. As far as I'm concerned, this is Rob's last chance to redeem himself. archola 19:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have been involved in the Talk:Jesus conflict, I would humbly request that you view this section on Rob Steadman's talk page concerning the recent war that has transpired. I do ask that you do not edit or add to / add comment to this material for the sake of clarity and conciseness. You are free to leave any comments on my talk page if you so desire. Thank you. --Avery W. Krouse 00:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McChesney Site Vandalism

Gator1 - I appreciate you taking the time to broker a compromise to this article. I didn't intend to be 'snarky;' however, I don't like to see a site comprised of information that is not relevant to the subject.Mikewelch7 19:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

It was a bureaucrat's decision (his first, if I am not mistaken). Even with sockpuppetry discounted, the margin was too tight and could be interpreted either way. You can read all about it here and here.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 22:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks!

Thank you!
Hello Gator1/Archives/February 2006, and thank you for your support in my request for adminship! It passed with a final count of 98/2/0. If there is anything I can do to help you, please leave me a message on my talk page! -- xaosflux ^Talk

Thank you!

Thank you very much for your support during my recent Admin election, I appreciate the trust that you have put in me. Please contact me if you have any questions, comments or concerns regarding my work as an admin.

Kind Regards, Elf-friend 08:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...

So you think Bonny has never done this stuff before? --Ghirla | talk 13:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This ghirla made a real harrasment on my user page, just check this out: Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ArbCom had decided that they will banned him if he doesn't stop this. --Yodo 13:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why I really don't want to get involved, nor do I really care all that much. Please keep me out of this. Thanks.Gator (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patience, my Friend!

We're not going to start all over. Jayg's minor edit has to be discussed because of who he is. Others have been slightly uneasy, even though they voted "accept." This, along with my acceptance of Jay's change, will give us stronger enforcement down the line.

I'm showing Rob only enough attention to show I'm reasonable. If he confirms that he wants to delete "historians" I'll have on record that there are historians in the list of names and more to come. Howl fierce as he will, that's a closer. We have enough reverters to block changes.

The paragraph will remain in substance the same when we are done. --CTSWyneken 20:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a line item vote this time. This ought to settle any remaining issues and solidify the concensus. Arch O. La 21:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've tried and I've failed. There is only one thing left to do. --Avery W. Krouse 21:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've called for clarity and written an editorial on the "one thing" link above. Feel free to comment. Arch O. La 01:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advocate needed

I may be in need of an advocate due to charges in regards to the Shiloh Shepherd article discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Shiloh/Evidence

Trillhill Breeder

Pushes POV, advocates meatpuppets,reveals info on court documents 154 155 156 157 158

2.Recommends article deletion if not given POV 159

3.Threatens to disaparage Wiki to public when her POV is not granted 160

24.242.252.125 aka Carmen

Pushes POV and makes attacks on a picture of a dog an editor put in the article, posted signing another name: 161 162 163 164

Would it be possible to act as my advocate? Please respond on my talk page. Thank you for any help you can provide.

Trillhill 11:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for your support of my request for adminship. I'm delighted that the RfA ultimately succeeded with a final consensus of 52/1/0, so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any comments regarding my editing, or I can help you at any point in the future, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Again, thank you!

_└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 10:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAC vote count

I've removed the vote count you added to the Laura Schlessinger FAC. FAC's are not based on voting, but on reaching a consensus to promote. When the FAC bureaucrat user:Raul654 goes through to determine which articles get promoted, he looks to promote only those with standing reasonable and actionable objections. As such, a vote count is not needed. - The Catfish 21:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Article Peace Patrol

Thanks for being a part of the peace patrol. We've now both reverted changes we agree with. Should there be an Alito Barnstar we can award each other with for these actions? 8-) --CTSWyneken 13:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just a joke. Justice Alito is known for ruling counter to his own philosophy. So I think we need one like this for reverting friends on principle. 8-) --CTSWyneken 14:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... And also with you.

I award you this Alito barnstar for reverting friends and favourable edits on principle

--CTSWyneken 15:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, fellow Wikipedian for your peacemaking in Jesus. I trust that the WP:3RR will prevail to keep the neutrality flag off. drboisclair 17:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask a favor?

I think I need some help on December 25, the discussion died down a long time ago, and now all that's left are me and 2 people from the minority view who don't want the Christ in Christmas. I already tried reverting twice but they've outnumbered me, I plan to argue something along the lines of "Can't say Christmas without Christ", can you help me out? none of the other editors seem to still be active and I dunno what to do, I mean, if you just say that it celebrates Jesus, then it could be the Islamic view of Jesus, the Bah'ai view of Jesus, any religion at all's view of Jesus, Christmas isn't about just a generic definition of Jesus, it's about Jesus Christ, you know? Anyway, if you can lend a hand, i'd appreciate it. Homestarmy 20:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

awwwww

Rufio looks just like our kitty, Despierto (affectionately known as Killer). [6]. ... aa:talk 21:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you for supporting me in my successful RFA. The admin tools will definitely be useful for dealing with vandalism more swiftly. Please drop a note on my talk page, should you have questions about any of my actions. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 02:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robsteadman

Sorry for the late reply. You should probably be leaving notices on WP:AN instead. I haven't had time over the last few days to do much WP stuff. Looks like WMC and Deskana are on the case, though. howch e ng {chat} 17:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, he still has to find two other editors to join the complaint... --CTSWyneken 17:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your voting!

Hi, thanks for your voting on my RFA. It has finished with the result 88/14/9, and I am promoted. I am really overwhelmed with the amount of support I have got. With some of you we have edited many articles as a team, with some I had bitter arguments in the past, some of you I consider to be living legends of Wikipedia and some nicks I in my ignorance never heard before. I love you all and I am really grateful to you.

If you feel I can help you or Wikipedia as a human, as an editor or with my newly acquired cleaning tools, then just ask and I will be happy to assist. If you will feel that I do not live up to your expectation and renegade on my promises, please contact me. Maybe it was not a malice but just ignorance or a short temper. Thank you very mach, once more! abakharev 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns At My Re-RFA

Lol. I should probably put that userbox further up, but the last time I checked beneath my pants, there was a penis and testicles down there. ;-) Karm a fist 15:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#4

Sure, I can't respond right now, but I will fully soon. Also, this might clear things up. Karm a fist 16:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karmafist's RfA

Hope you don't mind, but I removed your strikeout and response to the anon, since I had already moved his "vote" to the comments section. Also, I'm pretty sure Karmafist is a guy. android 79 15:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. Thought she was a woman for some reason...oh well.

Regarding your confusion: KF was desysopped as the result of this case. It's linked in the nomination, and you're not the only voter who's not noticed... android 79 15:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When Rob is Back

Just a reminder: do not respond to Rob at all if he repeats old arguments or gets abusive. If he changes a consensus paragraph, revert it. Keep track of your reverts and only do it twice. If we co this, nothing will come of it except frustration. --CTSWyneken 20:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Against my better judgment, I'm trying to play moderator. That way I can avoid being nominated for admin. --CTSWyneken 20:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I have withdrawn from sympathetic confrontation because that was clouding my judgement. Ignore any ad hominem attacks on religous faith, and make sure none of us resort to ad hominem attacks on Rob. Ad hominem is meaningless; it will get us nowhere. Civil debate is, of course, still welcome. Arch O. La 22:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy

Please take a look at the Talk page (Talk:Timeline_of_unfulfilled_Christian_Prophecy) of this article. —Aiden 04:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fast One being pulled on Jesus talk

Quorum call. Come and vote. --CTSWyneken 00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deskana

Please do not liken my situation to Deskana's - I used to do this stuff for a job and would not have made the complaint if the all the facts did not support - unlike my situation where an unsuspecting admin gave out "bonus" info that had not been requested and other users made assumptions based on that. SOPHIA 18:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]