User talk:HandThatFeeds/Archive 2010

Universal Faithists of Kosmon citation removal

Hi, I don't know if I understood correctly that it was you who undid the citation inserted concerning the Eloists and the above said organization , I checked the link I had inserted and actually it was not correct; the following though, should address to the right link with data of the Universal Faithists of Kosmon association, in case it was you, please have a look if you have time and let me know if this, in your opinion, would match requirements for citation;

http://www.novelguide.com/novelguide_gsearch_results.htm?cx=014594894019114723871%3Ajichblhs364&cof=FORID%3A11&q=universal+faithists+of+Kosmon&sa=Search#652

Thanks for attention,

Sincerely

Vanais (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, I don't see how novelguide.com satisfies WP:RS. It doesn't appear to be any more reliable than a blog. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Vincenza Taffarel (2nd nomination).Borock (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you review my rationale?

Hello, HandThatFeeds. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Vincenza Taffarel (2nd nomination).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This is about as close as I can come to arguing my case perfectly according to policy. Please read my comments on AFD and see if you disagree.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

root race

then make it a subsection of the article redirected to - an article that has not been altered to include the content. You are de facto deleting this article, and thus deleting useful information about the concept. The redirect does not even bother to link to a relevant section. It's just deletion. I cannot see the point of removing material that accurately summarises a notable theory, however absurd thst theory may be. It's like deleting information about the content of Greek myths on the grounds that they are implausible. Paul B (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I am also perplexed by your claim that "The Secret Doctrine" does not satisfy WP:N. Are you really unaware of the influence of Blavatsky's writings in the late 19th - early 20th century? Paul B (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread your comment. Still, the specific root race concept was influential. Paul B (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not "deleting the article." Some of what's in the article could be merged into the article on the book itself, which certainly is notable. However, the concept of "root race" really hasn't made a notable impact on the movement. At best, a paragraph or two summarizing it in the article on the book is all we need. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 04:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know it could be, but it hasn't been; that's the point. Hence the phrase "de facto" deletion. I disagree about the notability of the concept, which is quite familiar in early 20th c culture. I see no point in removing a longstanding article that contains interesting material. It's just destructive. You are not combating 'fringe theories' in a meaningful way by doing so. Paul B (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "combating" anything, so please assume good faith. Also, "it's interesting" is not a reason to keep an article. Even if we did keep it as separate article, I'd be trimming it down a lot. And we'd need more reliable sources to support a stand-alone article on the subject. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning for discussion interference on CoM RfC

You are hereby warned for discussion interference on CoM RfC. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 04:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This coming from someone who shows no interest in a serious discussion... right. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Drive By Hello...

Om nom nom nom... Yes, I had to bite! :D -- RavanAsteris (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds

Hello. Please, I am not here to embarass either of us or to waste our time with bullshit, but, let me just say this, out of curiosity: I have happened to come across a fairly reliable site, in my opinion, just yesterday, in fact, and I'm a little disturbed by what I've read. Just a little. Look, it is impressive how you and a few other users are constantly watching articles such as satanic ritual abuse and skillfully suppressing all kinds of information not to your favour, even legitimate kinds, but, please, several users have become somewhat concerned over this. I cannot yet confirm what your exact intentions for doing so may be, but know that not only I am suspicious of such activity. Even if you have nothing to with this, I would like to ask you several questions, out of mere curiosity: How have you become interested in such a topic as satanic ritual abuse? Do you believe that ritual abuse, even if entirely fabricated, as you claim, should be accepted in modern society if it should one day exist? While I admit it is always admirable to unearth the truth and expose false allegations, I cannot deny my curiosity in this one matter, nor will I refuse to believe that every single user whom have edited this page is not questionable in specific intention.

Do not fear: I will not cause trouble for you and your people here on Wikipedia (I mean, come on, what kind of person would even know of such an article's existence? It would be pointless either way...) I will not waste my time engaging in your so-called "neutrality disputes" or attempting to edit an article when every contribution made not to your liking will be quietly undone in the matter of minutes. I mean no offense, but I will only say this: I, and Wikipedia, cannot, and shall not, tolerate anyone who is trying to suppress any form of valid information. So you're saying that all allegations of ritual abuse are false? Heh. Good luck convincing modern society that. Despite having made over a thousand edits on Wikipedia through these years, I will admit that, frankly, I am truly sickened by being here for many reasons, and I will not bother you anymore if you respond to this. Thank you. Bye. Aidoflight (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(*sigh*) This is why two of our most important rules on Wikipedia are "assume good faith of other users' intentions" and "maintain an article's neutral, factually based point-of-view". Your entire post right here is very condescending, and so very self-assured that your view is the right one.

I'll tackle this one point at a time:

1. How have you become interested in such a topic as satanic ritual abuse?

From a young age, I was taught to question things and look for answers rather than just take what I was told for granted. I was fascinated by UFOs, rare "monsters" and ancient mysteries. But every time I went and researched these things, they came down to eye-witness testimony with zero real evidence. Or, worse, faked evidence. As for SRA, I first became aware of the claims because I was raised in the 80s, when the news kept putting up scare stories about it (like "Playing Dungeons & Dragons leads to Satanism which leads to human sacrifice!"). The claims were fantastic, there was never evidence, and many of the most famous testimonies have proven to be totally fraudulent. As I got older, the claims of SRA kept getting whittled down to "because I said so" stories. Worse, it came to light that the children who claimed to be victims were led, pressured and coerced into lying about what happened by people who were either in it for the money, or who honestly believed in SRA but just needed to create evidence to prosecute people they believed were "bad."

2. Do you believe that ritual abuse, even if entirely fabricated, as you claim, should be accepted in modern society if it should one day exist?

Facepalm This is like asking me "When did you stop beating your wife?" No, abuse should not be tolerated in our society. I really have to question why you even felt it necessary to ask.

3. So you're saying that all allegations of ritual abuse are false?

In the form of SRA, yes. You want to know what real ritual abuse looks like?

"Three children freed from a cellar in which their mother had been imprisoned and raped by her own father for 24 years had never seen daylight, police in Austria have confirmed."

"NATASCHA KAMPUSCH, who was kidnapped at the age of 10 and held for eight years until she escaped her captor in Vienna..."

Elizabeth Smart kidnapping

Trafficking of children

Back to your rather rude statements, I again ask what you mean by "you people." Do you really think this vast satanic conspiracy exists? Please. People can't keep secrets, especially ones that big. If there were such a conspiracy, evidence would have come out. Hell, even Scientologists can't keep their secrets secret!

There's a bad habit of some fundamentalists in our country to label anything they're afraid of as "satanic." That kind of witch-hunting leads to innocent people getting hurt all the time, while the real bad guys (murderers, rapists, actual child-abusers) get ignored in favor of these dubious conspiracy theories. People have said that the Harry Potter books are part of a satanist conspiracy, for heaven's sake!

If you're honestly concerned about abused children, go study it in medical school or pick up some psychology courses. Hell, just go volunteer at a hospital. You're more likely to see cases of elderly abuse, but you'll see real child abuse victims and learn what that really means. Your fantasy ritual abuse ideas will fade pretty quickly when you see real victims of abuse trying to survive, and what real abusers behave like. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologies if I have sounded uncivil for some reason, HandThatFeeds. However, I must confess it of some interest why such sites as http://ritualabuse.us are blocked permanently and marked as "spam". I mean, if you don't want the site to be publicized, seriously, at least think of a better excuse... The site does acknowledge this however, and claims that Wikipedia, or at least some of its editors, are attempting to quietly and quickly suppress any legitimate information about Satanic ritual abuse, a claim I must confess I cannot find completely unreasonable, because of recent personal experiences here. For instance, this is a random article I have recently found online: [1]. Is it another example of a false allegation? Regardless of what you may or may not say or mean to say, the people whom committed this particular crime consider themselves Satanists, the Russian law enforcement and government agencies consider them Satanists, the families of their victims consider them Satanists, and I consider them Satanists. But, of course, as you insist, it is of course possible this was yet another false case, a source far too unreliable to be utilized...

I have always thought of it this way, in what I believe in, and in what I do. If I am wrong in my beliefs and that it is really "wrong" for some reason to believe Satanic ritual abuse exists, then let me burn for eternity to pay for such sins. However, if others are wrong, I think, let God judge them however He may. Of course, no evidence of widespread Satanic ritual abuse, as a single united organization, has been unearthed (as of yet), yet your vague comments appeared to indicate that you believed strongly that none of the scattered allegations can be deemed valid as well. Are you sure you are correct in your own stance, my friend? If you could respond, it would much be appreciated. My thanks, Aidoflight (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sites go on the spam blacklist when people habitually place them on articles (especially unrelated articles), after its been pointed out that they are not appropriate sources for the article in question.

Again, what "legitimate information about Satanic ritual abuse" are you saying has been surpressed? The Daily Mail is a sensationalist rag, and I wouldn't believe them if they told me the sun was rising in the morning. And given the kids claim to have dug up a girl from a cemetary and "eaten her heart," I call shenanigans. Embalming would make that impossible to stomach. I've heard too many people claim that a killer said they were a satanist, only for it to A) be completely false or B) something the killer said to get off on an insanity plea. Regardless, they have nothing to do with the actual Satanist church: these are sick indivduals who've killed and then claimed "the Devil made me do it." Calling that evidence for a massive ritual abuse conspiracy is a pretty rough stretch.

Finally, I really don't care what your religious beliefs are. I doubt anyone would "burn for eternity" for believing in that. But, yes, there's no evidence of a world-wide conspiracy, which is what SRA is explicitly about. I don't doubt that some isolated killers claim to be worshipping satan, but that still doesn't show any kind of conspiracy. And the killers claiming to be satanists are usually emulating old Medieval ideas of witches and devils, which have nothing to do with the modern Church of Satan-folks (who are typically just greedy nihilists).

Hopefully that explanation settles your mind some. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that the statement that the Daily Mail is 'a sensasionalist rag' is biased in itself, my friend, pure opinion. Are you sure your own tone reflects a suitable one of neutrality? Perhaps there is no 'conspiracy', per se, at least yet proven, but my point is that it would be foolish and confusing for you to not given credibility to the sources which report even these 'isolated' cases. Note that the site does not support a 'conspiracy' theory, but merely aims to provide support for those whom have suffered from abuse, as laughably low as these numbers you claim may be. Yet it has still been marked as spam permanently. You think such a site is spam? That it is fair to block such a site indefinitely just because several vandals and sockpuppets have abused it along with dozens of other random sites? Very well, you are entitled to your own opinion, but I personally disagree. Seriously, dude, I see no more point in continuing our conversation, but I strongly suggest you find something more beneficial to do than contribute to Wikipedia. Really, you will get very tired, very weary, very jaded, if you spend the rest of your life using Wikipedia as your daily hobby. Thank you. I shall leave Wikipedia now; there is no more need to respond. Farewell, Aidoflight (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Being neutral when writing a Wikipedia article doesn't mean I have to give up on reality. The Daily Mail isn't a reliable source, and what they're reporting is from a group of messed up kids in Russia.

It doesn't matter if the site is designed to help people. If folks are repeatedly inserting it where it doesn't belong, it's spam. Yes, it's fair to block it to prevent vandals using it to disrupt the encyclopedia.

Further, your tone has again gone straight to condescending. Projecting much? If this is your opinion, I suggest you take your own advice and actually follow through on your previous claims that you would never edit here again. Though I suspect you'll be back, just like before. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I was mistaken in saying The Daily Mail earlier: I meant The Sun. See, I did some more searching, and it turns out this story isn't reported by the Daily Mail. They were repeating an article printed by The Sun, which is a totally unreliable source.[2] Fun thing is, they're not the only ones: Fox News, MSN, the Daily Mail and others all go back to this report by the Sun... and there's been nothing since 2008 about this set of killings. Two years, no trial listed, no further news on the victims. Isn't that the least bit suspicious to you? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Per Talk:Genesis_creation_myth#Topic_ban_time.3F the page User:Nefariousski/sandbox/Creation Myth ANI was created. If you have any comments or contributions they will be welcome. Cheers, Ben (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please review the ANI draft at the link Ben posted above. If you have any suggestions or contributions add them to the page. I don't want to wait much longer (like within 24 hrs) to post it. Nefariousski (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hand

Please assume good faith on my part, and demonstrate it on yours. Your AGF notices are betraying a lack of AGF on your own part. Now, if you want to clear the air, and if you do have good faith, I'm perfectly willing to work with you as you try to include other POVs in a collaborative effort.EGMichaels (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

pardon me for replying on another users talk space (and I don't by any means imply that I'm speaking for HTF} but the issue is that you don't get to frame the discussion and assume those who don't participate in your framework are doing so in bad faith. you want to change your framework to one of policy and reliable sources instead of balancing POVs then we might have some sort of a useful discussion. Seeing as how so far (at least in the last 2 months) no policies, guidelines, reliable sources etc... have been brought up that oppose the use of "Creation Myth" in the article or in the title. So far every other "option" is based on opinion, appeals to emotion or outright stubbornness in some cases. None of which give much of a leg to stand on. Policy trumps opinion, Reliable Sources trump appeals to outrage, and so on. Nefariousski (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

EGM, I extended good faith to the point of breaking. That point was when you blatantly told King would not consider their edits in good faith; that he had to prove them, by participating in your arbitrary game. At this point, further gaming will receive warnings from me. I've been collaborating with editors for a long time now, so please don't attempt to school me on this. If you really want to edit productively, stop trying to make this a an "us vs them" environment. If you feel editors are actively fighting against consensus, prove it. My patience on this point is exhausted. Nefarious has summarized the issue succinctly. Unless you have some new issue to bring up, you're just stirring the pot at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nef, Hand (and I really do need a break from this for a day) -- the problem isn't the policy, but the fact that it isn't agreed upon that it is actually being followed. As I said, I personally have no problem with "myth". Heck, I'll even go on the record and say that the Genesis creation account is myth even in the colloquial sense (and you can quote me on that). So, while Cush and I don't share an agenda, we do at least share a sense of objective geological history. But the point is this: I'm not allowed to push my colloquial opinion here. None of us are. So, the scholarly meaning is neutral. Story is neutral. Less precise, but equally neutral. It's not gaming the system to try to get people to brainstorm when they are clearly at an impasse in a content dispute. I asked for a third option in the RfC (or whatever that was), and the closing admin asked for one too. So I followed that up asking everyone for that third option. Only the "story" folks were willing, so I worked with them until they ran out of options, and then asked the "myth" folks once again. Mad was good enough to say that "story" was possible but "myth" was preferred. I've got a lot of time for that. "Myth" SHOULD be preferred because of the common usage in the "Creation Myths" article and other linked articles. It works for navigation. It's preferred on the "Creation Myths" page because of consistent usage -- but even there it's not required. It would have been sufficient to use "myth" for dead religions and "story" for living ones. Most folks would have smiled at the lack of necessity, but agreed that Wikipedia policy wasn't being stepped on. But that didn't happen, so "myth" it is on that article. Well and good. But now we are here at THIS article. And while consistency between articles is preferred (I've worked for that myself in the past), it's not absolutely mandated. The ultimate unit of consistency is the article itself. At least in this article it would be wrong to call all other religious books "myths" and this one not a "myth."

Now -- here's my problem: I'm trying to make a kumbaya moment and some folks are furious about it. Just what are you really wanting the other editors to do? Go away? Between you, me, the fence post, and any voyeurs out there -- they probably should. One of the best ways to end a content dispute is to go to a different subject where collaboration is actually happening. I plan to do that myself (I'm really really tired of religious articles -- everyone's trying to use Wikipedia to either save the world for or from God). But for the moment, let's agree that we each assumed good faith, were each jaded in that assumption, and let's... assume that we've had a breakdown in communication.

So I'll try one more time here. There are a number of editors who are gravely concerned that "myth" isn't being used in the formal sense (and for what it's worth, the so called "formal" sense isn't really so formal). Let's at least grant that MOST of the editors on both sides really are concerned with the same policies -- and the story folks aren't quoting more policies to you because they are concerned with the same ones (or at least I am).

Myth may be the best choice. Wouldn't it be great, though, if there really was a consensus? There is certainly a consensus for myth AND a consensus against it. And maybe no single consensus is possible. But every time I've seen content disputes like this one side just sits down and shuts up while another side dances in a pyrrhic victory over a marginalized article that very few people will even care to read once they see the title.

Personally, I really truly couldn't care less what the title is. After reading the article I didn't see any real recognition of the allegorical take that Origin had on Genesis, and how the fundamentalist take wasn't really so ubiquitous in the past that it appeared to be. More people have regarded it as myth in history than the article takes account for.

And the POINT of that myth -- a lovely one -- isn't mentioned at all. It's a great pronouncement of "myth and metaphor" pointing to nothing that allegory is connected to.

Oh well. Maybe you folks are too shell shocked from those pesky theists to be willing to include them in the article. And maybe they'll need to become just as jaded and walk away. Wikipedia is a big place. My real interest is stock technical analysis articles, and I think I'll go there next.

But first, lets take a break (I will for a day) and see how we feel after the smoke clears for a few hours. Best (sorry, used an inactive screen name)EGMichaels (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I could sure use the break, my mouse hand is getting sore. On another note, if your goal is to get everyone to be happy with one choice I fear that you'll never see it realized. No solution is going to make everyone happy so by default we have to remove "happiness of editors" as a decision point in our consensus building. Policy and guideline exists for this very reason, and at least here on Wikipedia's version of consensus; policy, sourcing, guidelines etc... outweigh personal opinions and feelings by miles. In fact we have numerous policies and guidelines that basically say "your personal opinion and feelings on a subject don't really matter that much" (eg WP:IDONTLIKEIT which even uses the example of "It's offensive to my religion" as being a bad arguement that should be ignored in building consensus) Nefariousski (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nef -- I think most folks here are concerned with the guidelines. SOMETIMES the ideal just doesn't happen and "consensus" weighs in. You and I both know that. Also, "consensus" isn't just people who drop in to talk, but people actively working on the article. I'm not really motivated to add to the current article under the current title, so my own take shouldn't weigh as much as, say, Bill's. In any case, yes, let's take a break from each other for a bit. I have a baby being born in a few days, and a crib to put up after I finish working on this memoir for a 95 year old partner...EGMichaels (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, EGM, but I think you're just a touch naive. It's not about "those pesky theists," as you put it, but people who simply won't agree to policy-based arguments because it offends them personally. If I lose a debate, I'm willing to back off and walk away. Some folks just aren't, which leads to what we've seen here. Despite all the debate, we've come down to a few basic facts ("creation myth" is neutral, accurate and fits with established naming conventions) that some people are just never going to accept. And you're never going to get a kumbaya moment from that. I'd rather everyone walked away happy, but I'm a realist: that's never going to happen, because people are territorial animals. And religious debates are some of the most pernicious territorial fights out there. At least we're not dealing with the Crusades anymore... — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm half tempted to revert your strikethough of Temple knight

1. on the grounds of comedy, most of his comments were so far off base that I re-read them sometimes when I need a chuckle

2. on the grounds of example, his statements are often the best example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT for reference

3. on the grounds of comedy, wait... i already used that one...

Nefariousski (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

— The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to drag you into controversy so soon

today's Napolitano statement calling Fort Hood Terrorism seems to be sufficent to me to add the terror cat Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

rv your rv to evil

hello, i have undone your reversions of my edits to evil as you claim they are POV but in fact it is your reversion which is POV.

The first sentence was unsourced defining good as something which is beneficial to the observer, this doesn't match any dictionary definition of good and was not sourced.

Second sentence wrongly defines acting in ones interests without consideration of others as sociopathy. It's mearly one trait of sociopathy or psychopathy, please look up PCL-R, the industry standard test for psycopathy.

Or you can revert my edits again and call them pov, but it's not true and everyone can now see I am only removing unsourced material, which is the right of any editor and also from this comment that I was right to do so as they both appear to be POV nonsense themselves.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.30 (talk • contribs) 23:07, February 16, 2010

First, please remember to sign your comments with four ~ symbols, so folks know who is speaking. I'll give you tagging the first sentence, as it could use a better source. But the second, as you say, is a trait of sociopathy, so I don't see the merit in removing it. Would you please discuss this on the Talk page, rather than simply removing the text? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I do agree with the (unsourced) definition of good supplied, but that is with a "whole species, not personal survival" outlook on "benefit to the observer", which we both know would be widely misinterpreted by the masses, therefore defeating the purpose of an encyclopaedic article.

And acting in ones self interest without consideration of others is something we all do from time to time, it doesn't make us sociopaths, in my own personal opinion, doing it ALL the time would make us sociopaths, which I cannot source, but from your comments I sense you understand this is where the behaviour comes from. It would spread both misunderstanding of, and popularity of, to define a common human trait as a marker of sociopathy, which it isn't, simply because it is a common human trait.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.201 (talk • contribs) 12:16, February 26, 2010

Again, please remember to sign your comments, so I know who I'm talking to. And that's a whole lot of your personal opinion, which we don't include in articles here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Why bother when sign bot does it? You can say OR all you like but it doesn't change the FACTS of the matter in that the comment I removed is unsourced and the psychopathy comment was false as per the PCL-R. I think we are done. Added to which nobody is truly neutral, and I didn't use my personal opinion to edit (which as per comments, conflicts with my edits), it was simply something I discussed on your comment page.

And to spell it out, it was right to remove the comment which you defended with "But the second, as you say, is a trait of sociopathy", because it doesn't make a person a sociopath, as per ALL current opinion, and it's really that simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.215 (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The bot doesn't stop by user talk pages very often, that's why you should bother.

If it's really that simple, cite it. That's all I have to say on that matter. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories

Well done. :P --Swarm^(Talk) 04:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, at this point the only info in the article that wasn't in more appropriate places was the "organ stealing" bit. Which basically left us with an article on Haiti conspiracies that only detailed one conspiracy. No need for that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 28#Simple Instant Messenger

Hi, HandThatFeeds. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 14, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 28#Simple Instant Messenger. Cunard (talk) 08:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind

[3] As I say in my edit summary, the use of the template does have implications on the database as a whole. I also like pimping this particular option because it amuses me. Feel free to revert if you really want the template used. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! I didn't think about it flagging in the database. Good call! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Your templating of my talk page

Your warning [4] makes absolutely no sense to me, I consider myself one of the chumps, it is not an attack on any specific editor, let alone the supporters of the poll as you seem to think, who in that comment are clearly not the ones who would be doing the reviewing. Unless or until you explain to me what you think I said, I'll be ignoring your warning as unwarranted and unintelligable. If or when you stop by again, do not simply template me, it is not appreciated. MickMacNee (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice. I don't care if you consider yourself one of the chumps, you need to tone down the rhetoric. And you may not appreciate being templated, but it certainly drew your attention to the problem, didn't it? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. I still have no clue who I am supposed to have attacked, in the proper sense of the policy, or why I should pay attention to this warning when clearly you got the wrong end of the stick of the comment entirely. If you want to warn me for 'too much rhetoric', feel free to do so and I'll take it under advisement, but if you template me again, I'll take it to WQA as blatant baiting and a breach of wp:civil - the orange bar serves just fine to draw my attention to anything anybody has to say to me. MickMacNee (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to WQA me if you want. I don't see anything coming of it for a simple templating. If your statement on the poll page was supposed to be in agreement with those who support FR, it certainly didn't read that way at all. Regardless, you seem to have your hackles up over something, as your posts have been tensely worded. Have a spot of tea with me? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I was just about to do the same, but you edit-conflicted me (which confused me for a moment because I knew my move hadn't saved but I couldn't find the thread either - thought I'd broke the page!) Thanks anyway :) EyeSerene^talk 15:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh! Yeah, I've had that same thing happen to me before. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I appriciate all the hard work

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your contributions, well thought out points and admirable persistence at Genesis creation myth, the RMs, related ANIs and so on. Keep up the good work! Nefariousski (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)|}

.

WP:ANI

[5] Sorry - but that's not a clever plan. You moved editors signatures in a way that potentially made things very misleading. I understand it was done in good faith but you really, really, don't want to start moving around other editors sigs. Pedro :  Chat  21:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Chill, it was a simple mistake. That's why I never subst discussion close templates, it's too easy to mix up with signatures. And I was trying to fix it, but I (edit conflict)'ed with your revert on ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I just saw your fix. Ta. Pedro :  Chat  21:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Kmweber's editing restriction

Since you commented in the sub-thread WP:ANI#Specific question growing out of User:Kmweber's recent edits to an AfD page and his subsequent block and unblock, i wish to draw your attention to WP:ANI#Proposed modification of restriction of Kmweber where I have proposed that his restriction be modified as discussed the the "specific question" sub thread. Your views would be welcome. DES ^(talk) 15:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Case

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Weaponbb7 (talk • contribs) 23:33, April 11, 2010

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)

Hi, HandThatFeeds. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18#Richard Tylman, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"New Atheism" case, merge and redirect confusion

Hi, HandThatFeeds.

The article titled "New Atheism", with an upper-case "A", currently has no Talk page. However, by hacking the URL I found there is a "Talk:New atheism" page, with lower-case "a" (as I suspected), but it is only a redirect, created by you, to "Talk:History of atheism/Archive 2", with your edit summary "moved Talk:New atheism to Talk:History of atheism/Archive 2: article redirected, mv Talk to Archive page of redirect target". This appears to now be invalid, perhaps because a move or merge has been reverted? I see in the various related Talk pages that there have been merges and reverted redirects, so a team effort!

As "New Atheism" now exists, people need to be able to find a valid Talk page for it regardless of case, which means both creating a Talk:New Atheism page and correcting the re-direct. I suggest on that Talk page there needs to be a comment about the shared Talk history and previous merge discussions, with links to both the "History of atheism" article and its current Talk:History of atheism page, which is the logical place from which they can then access Talk:History of atheism/Archive 1 and Archive 2.

Do you want to do these, or shall I?. Thanks, Bricaniwi (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Okay, it's been a while since this came up. Originally, yes, the New atheism article got merged & redirected to History of atheism. Because of that, there was no need to keep the archived Talk page at the redirect. Note that this was a year ago, from my post at the bottom of that archive.

My only real concern is that, none of the history of the old (now redirected) article is in the new article. Plus, I'm still not entirely sure it passes the WP:NEO barrier, but that's something that can be discussed. I'll bring it up on the talk pages for both articles, and see if we can hash out the best way forward. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It may have been a while, but since your edits there has been plenty of activity on New Atheism, including yesterday, after my message above, where someone has now created an entry on Talk:New Atheism! (No surprises, it's re NPOV!)

Yes, my suggestion above, to cross-reference the two Talk pages, is to address the concern you express, which I share, about maintaining easy access to all the Talk history. I further suggest, in view of the fact that an entry has now been created on Talk:New Atheism, that the proposed cross-reference be placed, in correct time sequence, above yesterday's "first" entry. Agree?

As for NEO, I'm not addressing that now. My concern now is merely ensuring the mechanics of the existing pages work as expected, with a valid Talk page and its history accessible from the article page with that name. I'll watch here and on the Talk pages for responses when you bring it up there. Thanks, Bricaniwi (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

for your sincere attempt to moderate the issue on the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SirFloyd. - Theirrulez (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I just wince when I see people equate uncivil activity here with real-world harm (violence, rape, Holocaust, etc.). We all tend to get carried away in arguments, so it's not a big deal. I just prefer to point it out, so all involved can cool down a bit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ban of Sugar Bear/Ibaranoff24. Thank you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOCK

The wording is not clear to me, but thanks for clearing up that this is wholly irrelevant. There was a discussion on the talk page, but thanks for ignoring it and simply reverting. Just another waste of time for me in this entire episode it seems. MickMacNee (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh, if that's your attitude, yes, it was. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Who am I @ humanities

I originally read it as "who am I" (guess the celebrity). Be that as it may, I'm thanking you for closing the discussion when you did, I shall cherish one of the few moments that I got to have the last word. :-) Best, PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Template?

Will you post the warning template to User talk:Middle 8? He has said explicitly that he will not take anything I say seriously. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Users should post their own warnings and not request proxies to do it for them. Off2riorob (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

In your opinion. I'd usually agree, but this particular user needs third-party reminders since he doesn't like me. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Greatly appreciated! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was already in the process of warning the user, but Real Life took priority for a few minutes. That said, I think going to ANI was overkill, and not worth sullying your reputation with, SA. Assuming the user actually stays retired, there's really nothing else to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to know where to go with these issues. In retrospect, a wikiquette alert may have been a better idea, but I was so shocked with it considering the long and drawn-out history, I thought that administrators might like to know. Ah well, live and learn. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Your request

Thank you for talking civily to me. I will gladly do as you ask. However, can I ask others not to make personal judgements on others on the same page. Can I ask others not to attack others. I did not start the question. "Truth" was asked about. I did not ask it. However, one came in with an accusation that was not true, and inaccurate, and continued with an inaccuracy of the position, and only reluctlanty to accept that I had not said what I was accused of.

So, may I ask in my turn for others not to attack as nothing is served by it. Why is the concept of the truth so difficult? Why does a direct reference to the words of Jesus on the subject so difficult?

The person who asked the question is not of my opinion or thought on this. I have read what they say, and followed the thought as it developed.

So, can I ask that people do not attack and make personal judgements. I was thinking of not contribution to Wikipedia's article pages again. There are many such pages that need updating, but I do wonder is there any point? MacOfJesus (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, you have a tendency to ramble into off-topic commentary, which is not what the RefDesk is for. It's for providing factual answers, preferably based on references. I've noticed you have a tendency to turn any theological or philosophical question into a chance to promote your beliefs, which is highly inappropriate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

So, can we form an agreement, then? MacOfJesus (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

... what? This is the other problem I've had. I'm not sure what you're talking about. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I would like to clarify what exactly MacOfJesus is referring to when he speaks of personal judgments of others, in the event that MacOfJesus is referring to me (I apologize, TheHandThatFeeds, for invading your talk page, in this fashion. I happened to notice this discussion while planning to leave a note about something else). The Rhymesmith (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)\

Not a problem! I don't mind you continuing this discussion here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that some have a tendancy to attack, and not read the trend of thought trough. Others of forming personal judgements. Such as: "You have a tendancy to...." "You tend to proslatise..."

I have not said: "You have a tendancy to attack..."

I am responding to your original request on my talk page. If it is that I should not respond here, then do say so. If that is the case then I am sorry. MacOfJesus (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You can respond here, that's fine. I'm just trying to parse what in the world you're asking me to agree to. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thus far (in my limited interactions with you), MacOfJesus, I have been confused by exactly what you're trying to articulate (which was part of the issue I took with your remarks at the question on Faith). Above, you refer to "one (who) came in with an accusation that was not true, and inaccurate, and continued with an inaccuracy of the position, and only reluctlanty to accept that I had not said what I was accused of." I am presuming that you're referring to me, and that I might be subsumed in the category of those whom you believe to have been making personal judgments and attacks. Would you verify that this is either true or false, and explain a little further? I clearly have something to do with your concern, although I'm not really sure what. The Rhymesmith (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia, and I am here only approx. one-year-and-a-half.

This particular Literary Form demands a gentle approach. I tend to be as gentle as possible.

When someone came into that particular topic, I referred them to two different methods of thought, instead of attacking their notions directly. This topic I did not start.

I am saying there is a better way to communicate, and more effective.

When you came in, Rhymesmith, am I speaking to Congress was and is my question? If this is so it is hardly becoming.

When you, Hand that feeds, came in first to a topic I was speaking on I was puzzled by what your name meant, I could only consider your response as an attack.

Sorry for being so blunt, it is not my nature! MacOfJesus (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What? The Rhymesmith (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

When I looked at your personal page, Rhymesmith, to see who was talking I came across the emblems of Congress? MacOfJesus (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I sometimes work on infoboxes or article text on my userpage. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Might I ask if English is your first language? The Rhymesmith (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Usually, ones talk page talks about the person. I have two languages vying for that position. I have taken the English language to a high level. How about yourself?

Only for OE who welcomed me to Wikipedia, I would have left long ago. Have you seen the article pages I have been involved with? Do you appreciate what I say about Literary Form? MacOfJesus (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This is why having discussions with you is so frustrating. What in the world does Literary Form have to do with this discussion? Either you're using the wrong words, or you're way off-topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Literary Form is the name given to different kinds of media, as in a library, there are Poetry Books, History Books, etc. In a media of communication where we do not know who we are addressing or what culture they are from this method of communication demands a greater level of respect and gentleness. Some people use the French and say "Genre" here. So a horror film on TV coming into ones family home may not be acceptable, but may be acceptable in the Cinema. I obviously come from a very different cultural background. I am also more familiar with using fountain-pen and ink, rather than typing and computer and internet. MacOfJesus (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you're using it wrong. Literary Form refers to, well, literature. Not communication on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Genre isn't an appropriate term for that either.

That said, I think I finally understand what you're saying. You want people to write in a "gentle" manner. Well, we try to assume good faith of each other, but you have to have a thick skin to be on Wikipedia. This culture involves (constructive) criticism of articles and each other's edits. It's going to be rough sometimes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If English is not your first language, your unusual usage of words and phrases is somewhat more justifiable, but it does make speaking to you difficult. This was the gist of my criticisms at the reference desk - you'd articulated incorrect descriptions of several philosophical terms (like phenomenology and existentialism), and you'd also paraphrased (I believe) others in such unintelligible terms that anyone reading it was hopelessly confused. The Rhymesmith (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I did study these subjects to a high level, obviously, in a very different cultural setting to yourselves. I have a person contact me from approx. 100mls. who has written on article pages and has confirmed my approach. Together we have written article pages. I am saying that "dog-eat-dog" approach to writings is not necessary the correct approach. You could say English is my first language, along with another. When I meet others of different cultural settings I attempt to unravel their mode of address to see clearly what they are saying. I do not attack their mode of address. There has to be a better way. I live in a multi-cultural setting. MacOfJesus (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. The way I would write on an article page is very different to the way I would write on a discussion page, we usually refer to that as a different literary form. Look at the article pages that I have written on and their talk pages. MacOfJesus (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm. This may be part of the problem. Firstly, I doubt you have any idea what cultural setting I'm actually from, and secondly, the names of philosophical movements (for example), have a fixity which does not change depending on where you studied them. Claiming that you're from a different cultural background as an excuse for misunderstanding general relativity is not acceptable (for example), and the principle remains true of terminology employed in academic philosophy (if you have a degree in philosophy, I'd think about getting a refund). I don't doubt that you've written article pages, but I am specifically commenting on certain utterances of yours on the reference desk which are unhelpful for a reader seeking information. If you include incorrect information anywhere on Wiki - be it in an article or at the reference desk - or information which is not germane to the topic at hand - it will be challenged and removed, in a civil fashion. My remarks about English and your first language stem from your very strange usage of ordinary English words and phrases. The Rhymesmith (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Mac, you may not like it, but the "mode of address" on English Wikipedia is confrontational. You're not going to change that all by yourself. People challenge each other's statements all the time, because our "culture" here is to be factual. Challenging each other to provide citations helps maintain that level of fact. Part of being multicultural is adapting to the culture you're in. I'm afraid you might have to adjust your approach a bit here on En.Wiki. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am prepared to do that, after all I am still here. But, I have observed pure attack. Have you seen the article pages I have been involved with? I, too, have challenged. I have had some success. MacOfJesus (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the attacks in question - but if someone is responsible for direct personal attacks commenting on you (as opposed to your editing, or conduct on Wiki), as outlined at WP:NPA, you can complain at Wikiquette alerts, whereupon the attacks will be investigated and your assailant censured, as necessary. I do caution you, however, to ensure that what you understand by 'attack' is the same as what other editors mean by 'attack' - given your confusion about other words, it's worth looking into, so you don't needlessly antagonize others and the community at large. Also remember to assume good faith.The Rhymesmith (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have already done that when I observed a new person being attacked. I disagreed with the new person's edits and gave citations that proved my point. Then someone came in and attacked the new person. When I presented this situation, I was told that: "we are keeping an eye on it". My approach was much more agreeable to all in the situation. I have not seen that new person in Wikipedia again. But this is not my point, here. MacOfJesus (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what your point is, here. The Rhymesmith (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You have answered one: 1. "Mac, you may not like it, but the "mode of address" on English Wikipedia is confrontational." 2. Could a person's own talk page or personal page (I am not sure of the correct terminology) have only what is relevent to them in it. To the first point: sometimes it does go beyond that, but not blatently. And I am doing my best to assume good faith. I had promised myself not to respond to: Hand that feeds! MacOfJesus (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I still have no idea what you're talking about - you do realize that this discussion is taking place on The Hand That Feeds' talk page? Anyway, talking to you has thus far proven an exercise in futility. I request that you restrain yourself at the Reference Desk, and I wish you happy editing. The Rhymesmith (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Mac, for the record, my name comes from this: To "bite the hand that feeds you" is to harm someone who has been helping you. I also took inspiration from the song by Nine Inch Nails, The Hand That Feeds.

That aside, I'm mystified at what you're trying to accomplish. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

All I am trying to accomplish is to have a more inviting/friendly place for people to write here. People in the UK and Ire would feel very hindered from contributing. Why I was confused by your name was; were you saying you were going to bite at will? Or were you inviting others to bite you? MacOfJesus (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? UK/Ireland is one of the most vitriolic, unfriendly areas of dispute on this Wikipedia, right after Israel/Palestine.

As for my name, it's a joke. I would invoke Foghorn Leghorn, but that's probably too obscure for you. The "Bite" is a link to my Talk page, inviting people who feel wronged by me to "harm someone who is helping (them)." For everyone else, it's just a silly turn of phrase. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this is why I normally would not "talk" in this mode. I am only describing my initial reaction to your first "speaking" to me. I have since seen what you mean by it. (I do hear what you say about UK and Ire people, and have come across a few that I would rather avoid.)

I do not know if you saw a news item that has come into some newspapers in UK. Professor Lynne Rosenthal, a PhD in English had an argument with Starbucks Coffee, in the UK(?), over the use of Plain English. The details are unclear. Marie Slair, spokeswoman of Britain's Plain English Campaign, said: "Lynn Rosenthal is a martyr for plain English.....". (I am not proslyting here! But "martyr" means witness!). This is why I say that it is a cultural difference in how we use language. MacOfJesus (talk) 10:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that this conversation has gone on so long on your talk page. MacOfJesus (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the length isn't a problem at all. I don't mind. :) As for Plain English, I'm aware of the movement, but it doesn't appeal to me much. In my work setting, or a place like this, technical jargon is necessary for being precise. Otherwise, whatever local slang is appropriate for everyday talk. Plain English is trying a little to hard to impose rules on everyday speech, in my opinion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a truly glorious discussion. The Rhymesmith (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So you agree then, there is a better way, all around? I can illustrate what the problem was at Starbucks Coffee! Life is so short for all that! (I have a sense of humour!) MacOfJesus (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion mentioning you

I have quoted you in a new discussion at WT:Perennial proposals#Paid_editing.3F. If you're interested, please feel free to join the discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that! For some reason, I thought it was already on that page. Anyway, I support adding it, and posted to the Talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the interruption -- but I'd agree that it should go onto the Perennial proposals list. Also:

Don't Panic! I promise, hooptiously and with the upmost bindlewurdlesness, to never read you my poetry ;)     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     23:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeaarrrgh! (throws self out airlock) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Just for curiosity

Hand that feeds, doesn't get bitten, but, my dog didn't know that, I've got twelve stitches on my wrist, and it took one full year to recover.:-) That's a true story.

Hello, nice to meet you.

Well, I just wonder, was my rebuttal too long?

I didn't see this practice anywhere else before.

Since this post is extremely important to me, the visibility of it should not be compromised. Or at least, I should have a say, before this was done.:-)

What do you think? Cheers. _{Fusion Is the} Future 20:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, quite too long. Not to mention a bit vitriolic. Anyone can still see th entirety of your comment by clicking on the "show" button, so the visibility isn't compromised. But, extremely long comments tend to be hidden, while discussions that get too long get moved to their own sub-page, to avoid cluttering up the AN/I main page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Since I am the subject of a false accusation, I have every right to display my rebuttal in its entirety, a bit vitriolic or not. Besides, it's your personal opinion. I was framed, and that's why, every single-essential point had to be made. A major-final rebuttle I would say.

Please respect that and restore it.:-) That would be a nice thing to do. Cheers. _{Fusion Is the} Future 22:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Vitriol is not welcome on Wikipedia, period. Your rebuttal is still viewable, so I will not be making changes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something here?:-) Have a good night and Cheers._{Fusion Is the} Future 23:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk archive templates

Hi. I noticed that you replaced {{talkarchivehist}} with {{atnhead}}, losing the history links. Would it be acceptable to add {{atn}} for navigation instead? Flatscan (talk) 05:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like, feel free. I don't see the point in adding the history links, myself, but they may have a use I'm not familiar with. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll do that, thanks. I see that you do some manual archiving – would you be interested in a script that does things like checking discussion age and template placement? Flatscan (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I kinda prefer to do it by hand. Often, there are discussions out of place because of unsigned comments or people who replied 6 months after-the-fact. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. I prefer to minimize the diff between original and archive to make validation easy, in case it's ever necessary. Flatscan (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's never really come up for me. Generally, if there's a question about a diff, you have to trawl through the original Talk page's history anyway, so I haven't worried about it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Zeitgeist III

What source would be required to prove that the movie is in production? There already is some advertising in known magazines and many theaters have already been booked for the world wide release, the author himself has written about the production often and when the release is. You can find what i wrote right below the video trailer on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYLLFpNn4lM ( QYLLFpNn4lM ). Do you think the zeitgeist movement orientation presentation should be included in the article: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3932487043163636261 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaby 64 (talk • contribs) 16:05, December 26, 2010

Advertising is just advertising. Wikipedia needs some independent, third party reports about the film. And no, I don't think those videos should be included in the article. We're not here to advertise for them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)