User talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 2

Feel free to leave a message for me here! :-) Kim Bruning 09:27, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hello again!

Feel free to censor to your little heart's content. That is what I will expect. ---Rednblu 22:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Creationism and macroevolution

Hello Kim. I have moved creationism and macroevolution to user talk:Kim Bruning/Creationism and macroevolution, and the talk page to user talk:Kim Bruning/Talk:Creationism and macroevolution per your request at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Creationism and macroevolution. I counted the votes as 11 delete, 5 keep (including one I judge a troll, User:Crevaner), and 1 neutral, so I moved the page and deleted the resulting redirect. For what it's worth, Wile E. Heresiarch 03:35, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hacker

Usually in the phrase "so-and-so can't do X, let alone Y", Y is usually the more difficult talk. I rate writing code as harder than understanding how computers work. So I would think the modified wording was correct, not the one you rv'd. (I didn't write the new wording, BTW...) Noel 11:53, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, there are levels of understanding, both on the programming side, and the operation side. But I'd say you neeed a pretty deep level of operational understanding for a lot of these breakins - e.g. the ones that uses buffer overflows of buffers stored on the stack. But now that I think about it, if it's debatable, the correct action is not to debate which is harder, but change the wording.... :-) Noel 12:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Changing room

Hi, Kim, I saw your comment on 65.49.77.82's work on Changing room. :-) Isn't that the wildest disambiguation page you've ever seen? I blame myself, because my friend George created the page yesterday as a redirect to Dressing room, and I changed it into a modest disambig between "means Dressing room" and "is also a play by David Storey". I thought why not, the play is quite well-known, someone might actually come looking for it. But if I'd known it would stimulate someone's imagination to that extent, I might have thought twice. :-) Sheesh, I can't believe it. "Change room" is in danger of non-uniqueness because "the phrase 'change room' can also mean for a person to move from one room to another room, or to change a room booking (e.g. to change rooms at a hotel)"? And the play Hapgoood had better be disambiguated here, because that's real ambiguous!

There should be a special re-ambiguation template for this page: "This is a re-ambiguation page, for bringing together various pages that might otherwise never meet." Best regards, --Bishonen 18:02, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Erm, isn't you are utterly out of your mind a little bit harsh for a VFD nomination? Ambi 10:24, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This was wrt some vfds on slashdot related articles. I was rather surprised, but toned down my language later. Most of the articles in question were kept Kim Bruning 17:10, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Esoteric programming language

Hi. Just wanted to ensure you that I looked at every article on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Esoteric programming language related at least twice, and also voted to KEEP some of them, but most are in my opinion rubbish. That they were added all at once may be a bit overwhelming at first, but would you rather prefer me to add three articles a day to VfD for the next month? Again, my goal is to improve Wikipedia by keeping/improving the good and throwing out the bad. I am sure you have the same goals, and we just differ in what's good. That's what VfD is for. By the way, did you actually look at all articles before you voted KeepAll? Even O xml and TMMLPTEALPAITAFNFAL? Just curious -- Chris 73 Talk 16:09, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

talk:human

I reverted your edit 'cos you inadvertantly blanked the entire talk. It's ok... I did the same a few edits back. - UtherSRG 15:51, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like your creative definition of humans re: Turing machine. Very provocative. I read the NPOV doc and tutorial again, and now I'm not sure where to continue our discussion about the meaning of NPOV. I've no doubt it is of high importance, so I kinda think we ought to start (maybe move our seed comments to) a new main section at Talk:human where we can come to a better understanding. Tom - Talk 16:25, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tom - Talk 20:35, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for expending the time and effort to spell out your thoughts about NPOV on my talk page. The idea of content is an important one. And the idea of improving the formulation of our NPOV docs is also an important one. Currently, I am afraid our NPOV docs tend to be bloated (a continual problem of the wiki format). There's a high probability that imprecise and non-useful ideas get added into the docs. I noticed that the wp:NPOV tutorial and WP:npov examples are far from perfect. I am a little in doubt about the formulation of fact vs. opinion, and I think that could be improved along the lines of what you are proposing: A fact is knowledge about which there is no known dispute today by otherwise reasonable people. Tom - Talk 20:35, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the fundamental concern you are trying to address, and I support addressing it. NPOV needs to avoid producing non-encyclopedic articles. I have a few thoughts.

• First, for controversial definitions there may be a need, even when using facts for the definition, to say that "Foo is P, Q, and R, but from some POVs, foo is defined more importantly in other ways." For the most controversial terms (not just controversial subjects), such disclaimers first may be necessary. Suppose that I represent a significant major POV when I say "A human is a child of God." Would it then be POV to say, "Human: 2 legs, builds buildings, etc." without saying, "but according to some POVs, more importantly defined in other ways."?
• You may have set up a little bit of a straw man in both of your worst NPOV examples, though this is probably simply hyperbolic liberty. Our policies don't encourage articles devoid of content. We all readily recognize such things as undesirable. In reality, an article that follows the current direction of the Human discussion to its conclusion need not lack content at all, though we would of course prefer to have some sort of definition (or definitions) right at the beginning. If definition is in the first paragraph, it is probably not a problem to have two or three competing definitions, I would think.
• Your ideal human example has content, but it is still from a humanist perspective and lacks the defining POV of a believer in God. We see in it an animal that happens to pray to God, not a child of God that happens to inhabit an animal body. It therefore falls short of presenting all human "knowledge".

  2 arms, 2 legs, breaths, possibly possesing a spirit, prays to God (where applicable) and paints paintings and builds buildings.

But again, I very much agree that NPOV content must be encouraged.

Admin

I just read Wikipedia:Administrators. I guess all experienced and trustworthy editors are supposed to be admins, and it is not supposed to be "a big deal". I am a little afraid it puts some users on edge, but I suppose the status can be held quietly most of the time. OK, it sounds good. I appreciate your nominating me. Tom - Talk 15:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks again, Kim. I don't know what I did to deserve your delightsome words, but I am in your debt and I will remember it. Tom - Talk 16:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gee, Kim. I am touched and led to sober contemplation of the trust that has been extended. Call me a big crybaby (maybe I am getting old--at 38???), but my eyelids are puffy. I will read everything you suggest and grow into this slowly. Tom - Talk 18:47, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oops. Tiny embarrassment. I didn't realize that sysop=administrator. 8-) Tom - Talk 19:25, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RfA

Hey, I just wanted to thank you for your support, and let you know once again what a pleasure you are to have here, and how much your genorosity and wisdom are appreciated. Please keep up the good work, and let me know of anything you would like my help with. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 21:53, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Green Hill Zone

I appreciate your explanation, but I'm still not completely convinced. Is that decision tree listed here somewhere? By that model everyone could vote "merge and redirect" and since there's no "consensus to delete" the article would have to remain. By my count I have 8 keep-only votes out of 27 (discounting one "edit" vote, as edit is not a choice), the others are "keep or merge", "merge", "delete or merge" or "delete". So if any consensus exists it seems the consensus is to merge and redirect, which is what I did. Nothing was deleted. Also I believe anyone can do a merge and redirect without it being brought to VfD at all, making the VfD vote somewhat moot. -R. fiend 20:41, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My main point is that this isn't s delete, it's a simple merge and redirect. Information was moved, none was lost. I'll grant there may not have been a delete consensus, depending on how votes are counted. Our counts may differ because I'm counting a "keep" vote separate from a "keep or merge" vote. Since I merged the article a "keep or merge" vote is at least partially a vote in favor of my actions. Since this isn't a deletion I'm not sure how important the vote even is, but as I said, a majority did not vote keep. -R. fiend 01:17, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just to be clear here, when you say "continue as you were" do you mean I should go back to making GHZ a redirect, and when I catch hell for it from the Sonic fans (as I'm sure I will) you'll back me up on this? I've made it this far without ever having a real edit or revert war, and I don't necessarily want to start now. I guess its not too important, but I basically read from the VfD vote that a merge and redirect was a pretty good consensus, and a very good compromise, as the deletes outnumbered the keeps. I just sort of want to get this right, particularly since there's a decent chance that someone will take this as an example and start making unneccesary and redundnat articles for the other "zones" in the game, and I don't think VfD needs to be clogged with them. Thanks. -R. fiend 00:55, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

SEO

What was your basis for reverting that link today on Search engine optimization? Offhand, it looked kosher and useful to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:50, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, this one didn't look offhand like it was advertising anything, and seemed to have about 10 legitimate pointers on ethical means of improving one's search rankings. As you probably know, I'm another one of the people who often defends this article against linkspam, but this one didn't look to me like linkspam. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:39, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

I suppose so, I just tune that out & read the content. On that basis, though, what about all our links to IMDB? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:22, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Red and FM

Well, I appreciate it nonetheless. I will be answering your mail and adding some closing comments on Red's page, then it's up to them, I guess. Tom - Talk 14:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Protection of SkyOS

Would you be able to protect SkyOS, theres a mad edit war going on at the moment

Kiand 22:27, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Silly technical question re: user contributions

How do you find out how many contributions user has made? Tom - Talk 19:33, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I discovered a simple trick. Fiddle with limit= and offset= in the contributions URL. Thanks. Kate's script is a little intimidating to me. Tom - Talk 20:29, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Evolutionism

(put here by User:CheeseDreams, according to page history)

How about something like this for Evolutionism: {{disambig}}

Evolutionism can be

• Social evolutionism, an interpretation of anthropology;
• Belief in or advocacy of biological evolution

I think it's been established in the VfD discussions that the term is not solely the work of creationists. Gazpacho 09:55, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry that we are still unable to reach a consensus.

• Having grown up Southern Baptist in the US, I am quite familiar with creationism;
• Having quit church at 14 and pursued a scientific career, I am quite familiar with the basic concepts of evolution;
• Having grown up in the state where the Scopes trial took place, I am familiar with the controversy between the two

and it seems to me that you are taking a needlessly complex approach to a simple question of how to use a keyword to guide people to a topic of interest, and to avoid article overlap. Gazpacho 01:46, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi again!

I was waiting to archive my TalkPage--to give Mr. Monk plenty of time to decide where he wanted to memorialize our little tête à tête.  :) Is there a system problem with the TalkPage? Alternatively, we could talk on your TalkPage. ---Rednblu | Talk 01:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. ---Rednblu | Talk 01:53, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

SkyOS

Any chance you could remove the protection on the page? The edit war seems to have been sorted out, with an agreement to what should be changed in the article. Talk has been inactive for a couple of days now, so I assume that all objections that are going to be raised already have. Thanks! Shane King 10:27, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, hopefully things will stay civil there this time. Shane King 11:46, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Mediation help

Before going higher in the steps, Milnea Tudoreanu seems intent on deleting "Occurences of the word "Ochlocracy" from the article Ochlocracy. I have taken two examples from the OED and found other historical examples on the way it has been used. Tudoreanu deletes the lot of them. I think it would be NPOV if he found his own references of the word and added them also but he deletes them all. This is not right. He doesn't seem to acknowledge history but wants to change history to suit himself. I quoted from Mr. Muller, a very famous classical scholar of ancient Greece. Do you not think that this man is quite capable of knowing what the word means. I also quoted from Eric von Kuehnelt-Leddihn who uses the same term in the same way as Mr. Muller does 100 years later. Isn't that being pretty good evidence of the meaning of the term? I need help here to resolve this issue.WHEELER 18:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Any comment on the Evolutionism proposal above? Gazpacho 06:53, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have left several messages on Mr. Tudoreanu's Talk page. I have left several messages on the Talk:Ochlocracy which he as never responded to. Two different people have restored the occurences of the word and yet Mr. Tudoreanu still deletes the section without talking on the discussion page. I did everything so far I can think of the man is not dialoging. Can you talk to him?WHEELER 01:22, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk

I observed your communication with this user, and sympathize. After alot of unhelpful dialogue, I decided to write him an email (perhaps the one you read? ;) and cease communications. Unfortunately there are a number of difficult users I have come across recently, enough that the thought of removing myself from the wikipedia entirely has crossed my mind. I should hope it doesn't cross yours, you are the Creme de la Creme here on the wiki, have no doubt. Sam [Spade] 21:11, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, all your email to me consisted of was calling me a number vulgar four-letter names. As much as I want to I can't even post it's content here- it's so foul I'd likely be banned. Do you think using the wikipedia email system to send other editors vulgar insults is appropriate? I think it's highly inappropriate and I'll be pursuing this further.--FeloniousMonk 21:18, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Email is outside of the Wikipedia Jurisdiction. Take it up w my email provider, or system administrator. I could help you w contact info if need be. Sam [Spade] 21:46, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So you are just cynically manipulating a policy loophole to harrass another editor? Your deleting of my warning to you to cease this from your Talk page would indicate that indeed you are. Your vulgar, insulting email was inappropriate, not in the spirit of wikipedia, and not very christian.--FeloniousMonk 22:17, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello, Kim. :-) Sorry I didn't reply earlier about the advice matter -- I got distracted the day I saw your note and then (alas) I forgot about it. I hope you'll forgive my tardiness in replying. Since your note, FM has contacted me via email about Sam....so now I'm involved in another end of this dispute. I don't know how to advise you -- I've just seen FM's talk page, and I would tend to agree with you that I don't think he's engaging in the most productive dialogue with you. I'd encourage you to stay cool, though -- write a new article or two to burn off energy and give yourself time to think. I'd say your comments, while not uncivil, are certainly far more curt and confrontational than is your usual style. Personally, I'd suggest simply noting that Wikipedia:Accountability is not policy (despite FM's impression of it) but rather a guideline suggested by a few people that has never been either repudiated or accepted (honestly, it's a policy few ever seem to have referred to, judging by the traffiic on that page and its talk). I'd also suggest, very politely, that since there was a little confusion about this one document (and its status as policy), the user would be wise to be careful in making assertions in the future. And since you obviously feel this user has an habitual problem with biting newbies (which I don't know because I haven't seen it), I think you are right to say that you'll be watching them more closely, and you hope they'll take "don't bite the newbies" to heart as policy (which it certainly is). I would say, though, that there's no need to emphasize the seriousness of your warning -- if you warn someone and they laugh it off, I don't think there's anything gained by trying to impress upon them that you are serious. All it leads to is frustration for you, I think. Instead, merely do what you said you would -- keep an eye out. Ask for advice and help from other admins (obviously I'm not so reliable in this area -- sorry! -- but maybe leaving a note to several will get one or two responses). And ultimately, if the person doesn't take you seriously, then someone else (the AC, Jimbo, etc.) will make them wake up. But you don't have to feel responsible for waking them up unilaterally. Does this help at all? I hope it does. If you have other things you want to talk about, or if I did a poor job giving advice and missed things I should be considering, please let me know. My best to you, Jwrosenzweig 22:41, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate Jwrosenzweig's involvement here, and I agree with his advice and will take it to heart. I hope the other parties will as well. I believe that I have not violated any policies in a way significant enough to warrant a warning from an admin. If I have, I not been shown any proof of it. Again, if someone would show me exactly what, how and where I violated specific policies, I can then avoid repeating the same mistake, and will drop any protest over the warning I recieved from Kim.--FeloniousMonk 00:42, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Kim, I have asked you several times to stop constantly badgering me. Jwrosenzweig has also spoken to you here about it as well. Absent any specific official determinations that I have indeed been wrong, much less any credible allegations from anyone other than you, I consider your missive to [[User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#FeloniousMonk |Jimbo]] to be badgering of the worst, most despicable sort. I must insist again that you stop it now or I will be compelled to seek whatever recourse wikipedia provides me to protect my good name against your onslaught.--FeloniousMonk 21:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tit for Tat

cheers for the re-write, i had left my book with the stuff about it at home. (this message from Michaledwardmarks)

Stephen Bronner

Regarding your request at Talk:Stephen_Bronner, I'll get some ISBNs up there this weekend sometime. ExplorerCDT 22:37, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• UPDATE: I finally finished getting the ISBN numbers on the Stephen Bronner page. That is, all except for one book on which I could not locate the information. Lastly, the article will be expanded over the next week to include discussion of his theoretical contributions, etc. Just wanted to follow up with you on that topic. --ExplorerCDT 05:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey

Sorry to see you enduring so much harassment, on Jimbo's talk page no less! It's hard to think of someone less deserving of such abuse than yourself... I feel at least partially responsible, since he is probably more angry with me than with you (afaik all you did was politely warn him not to misrepresent policy to nube's?) and I assume you are playing the role of scapegoat, since I have been avoiding him like the plague ;). I have found in my life that there are some people who just don't like me, and who I don't get along w, and they are best avoided. On the positive side, a name like yours won't be able to be tarnished, no matter how many times someone tries to pull it thru the med. Thanks for being you, Sam [Spade] 16:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kim, don't worry, I'm not upset with you. I'm only slightly upset at Sam for his comments to FM (but I've managed to figure out how badly Sam was provoked into his comments). I'm quite upset with myself for taking a lot of what FM said at face value -- I think I landed too harshly on both you and Sam when I talked to you at FM's urging. Now, of course, that I have come to the defense of you and Sam, FM is apparently accusing me of impropriety. My remarks on Jimbo's page were expressing frustration with FM (who was using my name like a stick in several places) and not with you. Best wishes, as always, and keep smiling, Jwrosenzweig 23:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I have not accused you of impropriety. I'm saying you're mistaken over whether I've mislead you, and that your treatment of a friend's misbehavior has been excessively sympathetic while what you've expected of me has been unreasonable, i.e.; a double standard.

And just so we're clear and you don't accuse me of stalking you here, I'm just here to clarifying details that are material to the issues regarding the behavior of all those who are present here in this conversation.--FeloniousMonk 03:21, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ANSI Graphics?

• Hello, Why is ANSI (graphics) misleading? I don't understand -- while it's certainly not the most advanced graphics, it is, in a sense, graphics, in that it has primitives which are used to compose a screen. I do know there's another sense of graphics here, as in graphics versus text, but I would suggest that ANSI really blurs that distinction, if not eliminates it. --Improv 14:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What happened on VfD?

Confused. What's going on? Is someone making alterations that are causing problems? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:16, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I wasn't sure what you meant on the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bureaucratship

Hi Kim - I just wanted to let you know that I'm running for bureaucratship, and I would like to ask for your vote, be it good or bad. I'm sending this message to a few users I respect who have interacted with me recently. Thanks, Andre (talk) 00:30, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the supportive bureaucratship vote. Sorry I let you know about it so late in the nomination - I'll be running again though, and I'll let you know earlier. :) Andre (talk) 15:29, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

The grid

Thanks for your help and information on this, Kim - much appreciated. I had, in fact, already found one of the CERN sites conected with this, at [1] - guess I should have looked harder in the first place! Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 12:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikinews demo up and running

Hi!

I'm writing to let you know that the Wikimedia Board of Trustees has approved the first stage of the Wikinews project. There's now a fully operational English demo site at demo.wikinews.org. This will be used for experimenting with various review models and basic policies before the site is launched officially in about a week. demo.wikinews.org will become the English version later.

You voted for the Wikinews project, so I'm asking for your participation now. Everything is open, nothing is final. What Wikinews will and can be depends in large part on you. There already is a global Wikinews mailing list for discussing the project. If you are interested at all, please subscribe -- coordination is of key importance. There's also an IRC channel #wikinews on irc.freenode.net. Realtime discussion can help to polish up articles.

If you're looking for something to do, check out the articles in development and articles in review. Or start a new story in the Wikinews workspace, or ignore the proposed review system - it's up to you. I hope you'll join us soon in this exciting experiment.--Eloquence* 02:00, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern

I really appreciate your concern over the Endorsement thing, as it comes from someone who didn't already vote on the adminship. I know you've stood up for Sam on occasion too, and so I respect you greatly for being willing to take an unpopular view in public. However, I'd really rather let the matter rest at this point in time. The Arb Comm needs to get things together and become effective, and that probably means as little controversy as possible for the time being. Shane King 00:59, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

TFD

Easily fixed. What probably happened is that Ta bu shi da yu was removing other sections, and your section edit conflicted. -- Netoholic @ 15:31, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

Endorsements page

Sorry to bother/spam you, but I thought you might be interested in weighing in on the state of the endorsements page on its talk page. --Michael Snow 01:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

About your removing my comments from a Talk page

I consider your removal of my comments from the Endorsements Talk page to be highly inappropriate and unacceptable. It is particularly inappropriate when my comments were in response to your suggesting that I should leave wikipedia, which BTW, is implicit in the gravamen of my allegations against you in our upcoming mediation. My comments were appropriate, polite and explained your behavior to another editor who was questioning it. Please consider your actions before you remove my comments again.--FeloniousMonk 02:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Have your cake and eat it too?

Hi Kim,

Although I originally shared FeloniousMonk's desire for a "central square", in which I thought an examination of the candidates and their platforms could take place, I admit that I was either naive, misinformed, or overly optimistic to expect such a result given the size of this wiki. Jimbo's pronouncements as one of the founder's the site sealed it's fate.

I now support deleting any pages containing endorsements or opposition to the candidates, primarily because Jimbo, one of the founders of this site, has made it crystal clear that he discourages the activity on such pages. I've got to respect that. I also listed a few other reasons to get rid of both pages in the Straw Poll that tried to build a consensus to either combine the endorsement and opposition pages into one page, or leave them split. (I added a third option - Delete both pages.) If you have a moment, I hope you'll read my comments underneath that poll.

But that is neither here nor there.

At a meta-level, I've seen a couple of editors, including yourself, repeat the assertion that we are not here to simulate online governance, we're here to make an encyclopedia.

Your recent comments took it one more step, when you stated, "We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to do experiments in online governance or anarchy."

Well, I'll assert that you must have online governance, or you'll have anarchy.

The Arbitrators aren't really governors, and Jimbo, Angela, (and a third person whose name escapes me) are the only real legislator's that Jimbo acknowledges at the moment. (The Administrators are surely not legislators nor governors - many think they are "janitors with a mop".)

So, unless Jimbo wishes to enforce his benevolent dictatorship using stronger methods, Wikipedia is doomed to see exactly this type of tension, between complete anarchy and the vague rule of the few legislators who run this site, largely in absentia (they can only be on a small number of pages at a time, so they are largely absent) - hence my call for more legislators, or "governors", to spread the load when it comes to making policy. Otherwise you get deadlock when no consensus is reached on policy issues, such as the one you are arguing about on the Endorsements page.

The "foundation issues" are supposedly non-negotiable. If that is the case, why aren't they more strongly enforced?

By the way, I can't seem to find the link to where the foundation issues are listed (despite frequent references to them) - can you please provide a link to them? I think there are five of 'em, but it would be nice to see them in writing all gathered in one spot.

Regards,

--DV 07:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More Confirmation

New information!!!

Cicero titled the Spartan Government a Republic.

In The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race, Karl Otfried Muller quotes Cicero on Vol II, pg 190.

In Republica II. 23., Cicero writes "respublica Lacedaemoniorum". That means that the Latin word "Republic" is same/similar to the Greek word "politea".

This is great news!!!

Sparta is a republic. This is great confirmation! WHEELER 23:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi Kim. Please can you see my message at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#User:FeloniousMonk_and_User:Kim_Bruning. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 17:41, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

note

I've responded to your comment on my user page. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 01:50, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Licensing comment

You asked me some questions on licensing on my talk page which I answered. You can check them out there. This weekend I attended the NYC WikiMeetup where Jimbo was. I had a chance to talk with him about my multi-licensing project. I had to explain a little bit about what I was about, but he is perfectly fine with multi-licensing so that we can share with other projects. He understands the catch-22 with copyleft licenses: There is no true copyleft because there is no way to copyleft to any open/free license. In any case, I am not trying to change Wikipedia's license, just allow the articles to be used elsewhere for other free/open licenses. Jimbo is striving to get an improved GFDL 2.0, which appears to have a decent chance to see the light of day in a fashion that is pro-Wikipedia. Jimbo and his traveling crew had just discussed the project before the WikiMeetup. They had discussed slightly the issue of Watchlist pollution, but didn't seem to think this was more than a minor annoyance, of course that isn't to say it isn't more annoying for you, and I do apologize for any inconvenience. This probably goes without saying, but the 90% acceptance figure was "as of the writing of this message", and it changes as people choose to accept or not accept multi-licensing. It does not include those users who do not respond, for whatever reason. Hopefully I've helped to answer some of your questions or concerns. If not, feel free to ask more questions. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 01:32, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

GNAA

Thanks, Kim. I really appreciate you making the effort to understand what I thought I was doing when I listed that article the other day. I walked into a big mess but most people have, like you, been pretty understanding once they figured out I wasn't just stalking around knowingly trying to do what four other VfDs had failed to do. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Time to move

New information!!!

Cicero titled the Spartan Government a Republic.

In The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race, Karl Otfried Muller quotes Cicero on Vol II, pg 190.

In Republica II. 23., Cicero writes "respublica Lacedaemoniorum". That means that the Latin word "Republic" is same/similar to the Greek word "politea".

This is great news!!!

Sparta is a republic. This is great confirmation!

It is now time to move "Classical definition" into the Republic Article. Both Cicero and Sir Thomas use the word "Republic" for governments with monarchies. There is no basis whatsoever for Republic meaning "Government without a monarch". This is just the result of sloppy 19th century scholarship. Even if you read the Oxford Classical dictionary, the meaning of republic is simple the state. A monarch is head of a state. The republic article definition is pure nonsense. WHEELER 16:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On Modern Scholarship

You and others many times told me that we need "modern scholarship" on this subject of republics. You told me to read Montesquieu.

John Adams on Montesquieu: "That therefore the domocracies of Monesquieu....are all mere fragments of his brain, and delusive imaginations. (Menace of the Herd, von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, pg 6) It looks like John Adams did not have a favorable attitude towards Montesquieu.

Von Kuehnelt further writes: "The decline of classical education in favor of progressive "self-realization" has favored the increased use of wrong labels. (pg 7) "Confusion of words and meanings leads to the confusion of minds, and the confusion of minds breeds upheavals and revolution, as a well-known American once righty pointed out. (pg 10).

That's it in a nutshell. Just plain old confusion reigns.WHEELER 18:38, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Need comment

I have been added huge content onto Classical definition of republic and I would like your criticism and/or suggestions. I don't know, without some oversight, what looks good or not, and I would enjoy some constructive criticism, suggestions, ideas. I am still working on it and I need some feedback. Strange, that nobody has gone in and changed anything. Can I get some help please.WHEELER 14:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rienzo

Rienzo is still editing under further sockpuppets User:65.161.65.104, User:MahBoys, and User:Sandor, and User:130.236.84.134.

This is in violation of a 3 month ban from the arbitration comittee - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rienzo

I would appreciate an immediate block of these accounts. CheeseDreams 14:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Thanks

No problem- I tidied it up as much for everyone else as for myself; I wouldn't be able to sleep comfortably knowing there was a such a hideous and unreadable page out there. If you know of any others that need cleaning drop me a line. -- Maru Dubshinki

Come to think of it, this page could use some cleaning, but it's not my place to do so. -- Maru Dubshinki 11:35 PM March 8

Arbitration Committee case opening

Hi, I see you are back on. And I am having trouble with classical works and definitions. It seems that User:Snowspinner is out to get me and destroy all classical articles that I have written.

The Arbitration Committee has accepted the request for arbitration against you. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER/Evidence. Thank you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:19, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

Can I get your help in this regard?WHEELER 14:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support. Have you seen the article on the classical definition of republic where John Aylmer finds that his govenment is just like Sparta! Isn't there a deep connection between the ancient Greeks and the English. Look at the Bibliography of the classical republic on Wikipedia Wikinfo at the end and I think you will be pleasantly suprised and the connection between England and Greece. On the other note: I guess on the "Evidence" page, please explain the importance of Classical studies and the need that Old terms don't have the same meaning today. And that for Classical studies, meanings must be preserved for classical culture. There is a seperation and a need for dual articles, one on modern meanings and one for classical meanings and the two should not be mixed. And that I am not a bad guy but am a stickler for the defense of old meanings against being rewritten for the modern age.WHEELER 15:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for your message. You really did like it? Yes, it needs a little cleanup. That's great. you have made my day. And i whole heartedly agree that England should keep the Elgin Marbles and any other Greek artifact that it wants. Is it not interesting that England grew up the same as Doric Sparta? And during the Victorian age, The British thought of themselves as Greeks! and modelled much of their institutions on the Greeks. This is great.WHEELER 16:29, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• This is my first message of the day and I wanted it to be here. I am midway through Rahe's second volume. Wow, what an eye opener. The Founding Fathers were following the Machiavellian course to a tee. They were deists, and Lockean to a Tee. It's amazing. The influence of one man and the ball he started moving. Montaigne, Descartes, Bacon, Locke is clear to see in the Founding Fathers. They mixed everything together. Funny, how their "republic" based on commercialism instead of the martial ethic of the Greek republics only lasted 100 years. Modern republicanism starts with Machiavelli.WHEELER 14:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Problem solved

• Delete. According to WHEELER, "The question is 'Should people be voting on something they have not a clue on?'." On Wikipedia, the answer is "Yes, that's our policy." You've been around long enough to know this. You talk about the commercial ethos and the warrior ethos. Well, the Wiki ethos is that of open source. The theory is that, if we let a bunch of people without professional qualifications write and edit and delete pretty much as they please, a good encyclopedia will somehow emerge. I know you disagree with the theory and with the policy. That's certainly your privilege, and you have good company, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica pooh-bahs. As long as you stay here, though, you have to recognize that that's the way it works here. The MediaWiki software is available under the GFDL for anyone who wants to start a similar project but with stricter quality controls. By the way, to save you the trouble of clicking through to my user page, I'll admit right now that I'm not qualified as a classicist. JamesMLane 08:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• this comment is a quote that was placed here by User:WHEELER, the original source of the quote has not been linked. Kim Bruning 15:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. And it is very clear to me. This is in a sense "stricter quality control". Yes. But the "quality control" on wikipedia is Marxist and Fabian, Humanist and Modern. You have laid out very clearly to me that "who is in control here". The standards being that people who are ignorant of any subject but with a bias to protect can delete stuff off of Wikipedia. And that is not professional, academic, righteous (justice) or truthful. I understand perfectly what you are saying. I will not start another page nor work for Wikipedia (though I will transfer stuff here). I see clearly where this is going. I can do better and stop wasting my time here because surely I am. Thanks Mr. James MLane. You have certainly opened my eyes to the fundamental core of Wikipedia. And that yes, then Wikipedia is run by a cabal. And it is a fundamental lie that Mr. James MLane has exposed the fallacy "of free and open content". Wikipedia is not "an encylcopaedia" it's a "controlled information platform". The only standard here is on "form" and writing, but no professional standards and no standard on "truth".WHEELER 14:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, you have exposed the "hypocrisy" here. All evil is hypocritical as Cicero has pointed out. "Coherence" and "Consistency" are hallmarks of truth which is missing here at Wikipedia. If this is "Free and Open content" and "Open Source" then why is there a deletion notice on vanavsos and why did the Classical definition of republic get deleted? There is a major flaw in the system. Quite prescient of those who practise "dissimulation". You say one thing but do another and this is the sign of it. See, Consistency and whole heartedness coherency is the foundation of logic which is the foundation of truth. Illogicity shows forth!

I hate Machiavelli. You can see Hitler and Mussolini in his writings! go to Nazi 25-point program and you will see that the DAP's program called themselves "liberal"! Classical republicanism gave birth to liberalism and liberalism gave birth to communism and later on in the Hegelian dialectic functioning in 19th century Europe, gave birth to Fascism. Sorry, Machiavelli is a typical Roman. Not a Greek. All of humanism hates the greeks though they took some things from the Greeks. Machiavelli is the root of disorder in the world and is evil. Along with the rest of them. When you see the American collapse which is comming, you maybe understand then.WHEELER 15:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear Kim Bruning, this is user Classicjupiter2

Dear Kim Bruning, this is user Classicjupiter2. You left an extremely rude message on my talk page and I kindly ask that you do not do so again.Classicjupiter2 02:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey Kim

Hmmm... not sure about going back to K5. It's got a bit trollish, and when I get amongst trolls I tend to troll myself. Can't help it :-) I might pop onto IRC every now and again - if you want to get in touch just use Wikipedia's email button and I'll try to reply! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

notepad tip

Left one on some vfd page. Thought you might like to know :) --BesigedB ^(talk) 18:59, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wolverines (Germany, 1945)

Sorry I can't help you here but you may want to try looking for the German translation "Vielfraße". A German Google search of Vielfraße at [2] may be helpful. Good luck. hydnjo talk 01:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Have a look @ Wolverine (disambiguation). Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:29, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Would a {{attention}} header, and/or listing @ Wikipedia:Pages in need of attention help, do you think? I've never really been sure if those things serve their intended purpose, but if they do it'd be great to bring in an expert or 2. I do admit it would be weird to dispute ones own page, but... whatever works, eh? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm a doofus?

(this is a copy of a message placed on AndyL's page) The score is now Three out of Four. Your crew It seems that with the deletion of the Classical definition of republic in some certain respects made me a dummy and an idiot and an ignoramus. That seems to be the conclusion previous. So this made all my work suspect. And all the articles that I have started were going to be put up one after another for deletion. I have now won three out of the four. Your Mel etits was not right in the Arete battle, and the rest of your crew lost out In vanavsos and family as a model for the state, these articles have found merit, along with Arete (excellence). Now, Think here. Three out of Four. What does that tell you? That maybe I know what the hell I am talking about. If there is a "Modern Republic" don't you think that there ought to be a [Classical definition of republic] or [Classical republic]? because from where it sits now, it looks like the British Wikipedian modern republican party is all washed up!WHEELER 14:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The above response was written because another Wikipedian wrote something like this:

• Please see: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Is_there_a_cabal_on_Wikipedia
  • Specific example:

"There is no such hint. Creating another article under a different name for deleted material would be an attempt to cirumvent the VfD and would result in the new article being deleted and possibly in you being banned. Also, I'm certain that editors would start examining your other articles and start putting them up for deletion." AndyL 15:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I want to point out this sentence: Also, I'm certain that editors would start examining your other articles and start putting them up for deletion. Right after [Classical definition of republic] was voted off, they began: check out, Talk:Arete_(excellence) where the title was changed, and Deletion notices went up on Family as a model for the state and vanavsos. What was happening is that "once they proved" I was "erroneous" in one thing, they began to start voting and deleting my contributions to Wikipedia. They were impugning my scholarship and knowledge and my trustworthiness as a contributor. They used the voting off of the [Classical definition of republic] to impugn my character and have assaulted my honor and basically called me a liar and a no good scholar. That is the "inference" of their comments and actions. All these assaults on my contributions is a way of assaulting me and of calling into question my worth and my edits and my pages, therefore wrecking my reputation on Wikipedia.WHEELER 14:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also want to point out that they deleted Classical definition of republic and now SimonP has created a page called Classical republic. What gives? They delete my article and then start their own? This is not right. No Academic in any college or university would stand for this. Yet, I am treated this way. If Classical definition of republic is "original research" then why is there now a page titled Classical republic?WHEELER 14:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No problemo

Sorry for the intensity of that response... I should not edit early in the morning before I've had a chance to mellow out. Laid back is better, I think. Graft 19:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Compiler metaprogramming example userfied

Hi Kim,

I userfied the above article as you requested, since the consensus was to delete. It is located at User:Kim Bruning/Compiler metaprogramming example. --Deathphoenix 21:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) It's still a good example. --Deathphoenix 02:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Check it out

Please check out republic. And I don't know what I am talking about.WHEELER 16:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Classicjupiter2

I saw your question on User talk:Classicjupiter2... It seems very likely that Classicjupiter2 is this person. See also User talk:24.168.66.27, and pages linked from there. ~leif ☺ _HELO 21:16, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Blocking

I just wanted to say that I'm a bit annoyed at having been blocked for almost 24 hours for making 4 edits to an article when you didn't even look at them to see how many were reverts; the first one was clearly not by any definition. More annoying is that Zen-master, who did make 4 reverts, was blocked for only half as long (though this was not exactly your fault). In the future I trust you will look at matters more closely before being over eager to impose unnecessary blocks on editors. Perhaps you should consider seeking a second opinion on these matters before taking action. -R. fiend 15:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A Whole-Hearted Thanks

I would very much like to thank you for your help and support on my RfA. I appreciate it very much. Thanks again. – ABCD 17:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

wiki nomic

hey, let's start a game of wiki nomic! -Alex Krupp 18:43, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi, I got your message on my talk page. :) Thanks for the welcome! Oh, and thanks for adding my username and post time to that comment in Talk:Evolution. I hadn't realized that I needed to sign posts yet. Mayumi 23:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sam's copyvio thing

I seriously doubt my removing it was illegal. WP:CP is not the contact of record for official legal notices, for one thing. However, if he wants to restore the notice on there, fine: removing incriminating information from pages under the guise of copyright complaint is quite another.

I do not have respect for people who are trying to "game the system", and that's what he's doing. —Morven 23:16, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not truly mad at Sam (since he's done very little to me personally) but his wasting everyone's time with dumb little games like this infuriates me. The whole "ha! Another loophole in the rules!" thing he's doing is intolerable, IMO.

Yes, emails ARE copyrighted, but claiming copyright of an offensive little dig he sent in an attempt to have it removed is ridiculous and insulting and, as he well knows, would be laughed out of court. For one thing, it could well be argued that there was insufficient creative content there. —Morven 23:29, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Conclusion?

See my response to FM. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks for your note on my Talk page. I agree that long journeys start with small steps, it's just that it's not clear to me that this is even a small step (for the reasons I gave on FeloniousMonk's page). SS is notorious among many, many editors for his game-playing, his misuse of Wikipedia rules, and his PoV disruption of serious editing attempts on a variety of articles (in one of my first encounters with him he claimed that he'd never had such problems with other editors; then I discovered the trail of destruction in his wake). If he'd given a genuine apology, with none of the weaselly provisos, I'd have kept quiet, and held my breath in case the leopard was changing its spots, but in the circumstances, I'm afraid, it just looks to me like more of the same. Still, if I'm proved wrong, I'll be among the first to rejoice. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've just reviewed your involvement in this, and the tone of your remarks on SS's Talk page. It now seems clear that you're not a neutral observer, attempting to mediate in good faith. I've no idea why you should choose to side with SS on this, but that's your business. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments

By way of experiment (but also because I mean it) I'm personally thanking everyone who took the time to comment on Wikipedia:Countdown deletion. Without community input, the proposal is worthless, so thank you for increasing its value! JRM 14:45, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Something you wrote

Yesterday, you wrote this:

Stay cool, and instead of being mad at folks, try talking

with them gently. :-)

I used to have fun shouting matches with my developer boss in

my first job, so I don't mind your style of communicating

:-).

However, some folks are going to be turned off by it,

unfortunately. See what you can do to temper your words, and

have fun editing! :-)

I'll unblock you for now too, but like behave eh? :-) Drop me

a line if you have any questions.

And I just wanted to thank you for it. This is WikiLove in its best -- the attempt to reach out to a user having problems and encourage them in a positive way. It makes me happy to see such stuff. This is how Wikipedia should be, and you're a role model to us all.--Jimbo Wales 12:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now thats better than a Barnstar! Hooray Kim! (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very well done, Kim. -- Netoholic @ 16:17, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

Wikiquote

Hi, Kim Bruning. Thank you for your yesterday cooperation on English Wikiquote. Please take this flower as token of my appreciation: . You are always welcome on our project. Cheers, --Aphaea* 03:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

chat for a bit

I got word that you wanted to talk for a bit. I'm often on IRC (or can be), especially on the weekends. Drop me a talk page note when your on, or send me a Wiki-email. -- Netoholic @ 05:18, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

Secretaries, eh?

Finally users JRM, PZFUN and Oscar have my number; so if you see them but not me, you can ask them to phone or sms me to come online. I don't think they'll mind... much. :)

Oh, I've got your number alright... :-) JRM 14:00, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

You are the child's

You are the child's Agasides 19:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

why a 4 years old child? Why not a 3 years old, or 5 years old one? Agasides 10:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You dont to threaten me

catch the egg and mow it! :P

Palimpsest

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not jumping salty on you -- but it may be in bad taste to rewrite comments posted to Talkspace. I often reconsider comments I've made, but where necessary, I strike them out, thus, rather than allow any room for a claim that I am kicking sand over my tracks. Probably not a big deal for the comments you made and altered; but perhaps a bad habit to get into.

I'll reply on my Talk to the substantive issue you raised. — Xiong熊talk 14:53, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

The original wardwiki suggests modifying content at all times, since page history records all the content anyway. This is slightly less handy on wikipedia with its high traffic, so my personal rule is that I'm still allowed to modify, provided that:

• No more than a couple of hours have passed at the outmost. (Else people may have read and moved on)
• No one has directly replied to the message yet. (Else the context of the reply changes)
• or the actual intent of the statement does not change substantially, though it might be stated much more clearly. (this is called refactoring)

This seems to work fairly well.

Kim Bruning 15:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like you know what you're doing. Part of the problem with our community is that the interaction web is too sparse, and it's hard to know personally very much about each user. I agree, within those bounds, it's not a problem.

BTW, I'm trying to set a trend and avoid fragmented discussions. Wherever a discussion begins, that's where I follow it and that's where I reply. I did start out -- like most users -- as if user talk were email, but that results in a page here and a page there, and worse when other parties get involved. — Xiong熊talk 17:16, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Evolution

Thanks for the YHBT link and the perspective (and the refactoring). I ignored Salva's comments at first, but then got caught up in the argument. Thanks for injecting sanity. Guettarda 21:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness. If I got too far off topic, I apologize, but I felt that a certain user was attempting to directly and inappropriately undermine the validity of my arguments. However, I still do not understand why all of my commentaries were removed and the others kept??? I'm sure if you tried to see this all from my point of view you would realize why I consider that manuever to be somewhat disagreeable. As always, I am willing to negotiate. Regards,Salva31

My thanks. You are proof that angels really do exist.;)Salva31 5:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Kim. Long time no see. Human got unilaterally redone on March 3, and the ensuing talk started to get personal, so I had to drop out. I sure appreciate the level you kept our talk to last fall. Now, as to Salva31 and evolution, I will see what I can do. Evolutionism/creationism is kind of off my radar, but if Salva31 has specific and valid content concerns, I may be able to help him express them. Thanks again for your confidence. Tom Haws 14:36, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Leaving

I don't know that I'm leaving. I'm just taking a break to clear my head. This post is proof that I'm not even entirely 100% on WikiVacation. There's just so much fighting and bickering going on that I'm not sure it's worth my energy.

I just want more WikiLove. BTW - thanks for the kind words the other day. Kevin Rector (talk) 00:31, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Before You Go On Vacation, Please Comment on SPUI

Whereas this User is in the Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Sollog should one be particularly careful and do you think that the SP part is a "stand-in" for Sock Puppet? This is a sincere question from a relative newbie trying to feel his way around. Thank you, hydnjo talk 02:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Simplified Ruleset

Hi Kim--just wanted to say I like your Simplified Ruleset page a lot. Sometimes I think we are drowning in rules and policy: this is very sensible, and above all, inviting. Happy editing! Antandrus 01:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nomic

Having looked at your user page you may like this quote ;-) greetings, --Elian 04:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The big secret of course is that Wikipedia is not really about an encyclopedia,
it's just a big game of nomic. ;-) --JimboWales

Thanks!

Thank you for supporting my nomination for administrator. —wwoods 05:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pero Que?

Maybe I'm trying to think a little too much about this one...what was your exact point on your last message to me? (And yes, I suppose I agree with those two statements.) Salva31 09:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your kindness. I haven't seen a lot of that on wiki in the few weeks that I have been here. Your example of what you call "microevolution" is one that I have heard before, and is not offensive even in the least. What offends me, Kim, is the next step which the evolutionists often claim as fact and use it to eventually say (in a more or less complicated way) "boys and girls, we formed from rocks over a gradual process of billions of years. This is more than theory, you see, and because both of my collegues here, Joe Stalin and Paul Pot, who are scientists, believe that it has replaced creation as an explanation for the origin of life, you should think that too." Do you understand now what my concern is? (don't let the names offend you by the way.) It always amazes me how two people can look at the same thing and come to opposite conclusions about it. In one hand, we have the evolutionist, who looks at our beautiful, inconceivably complex world and says, "well, it must have taken gazillions of years for this all to randomly put itself together." On the other hand, the creationist looks at the world and says, "due to the organizational complexity which we see everywhere we look, the only explanation is that there must be a Creator." The example you formerely cited is one of microevolution. Now, if that is what you want to call it, then that's fine, but all it is is a variation of genetic information. Do you think that humans will ever be able to grow wings? Given, there is randomness in variation, but there are limits. Salva31 10:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is offensive to use examples like Stalin and Pol Pot. And saying "no offense" after saying something offensive doesn't negate the offense. It really isn't helpful - people will focus on that and ignore everything else you say. Guettarda 16:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The road to improving my internet etiquette is a gradual progression=) -- I forgot to mention why I created that illusion. Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, and now even American high school kids as well were motivated, (if not then at least given fuel) to exterminate vast numbers of their own people thanks to evolutionary philosophy. If you think I'm wrong, go read Mein Kampf, or ask one of the kids at Columbine high school what Dylan's shirt said on the front of it or what belief was prevalent in his family when he carried out his slaughter in 1999. I'm sure you can understand how much patience I am exhibiting here. It is only the beliefs which drive people to do evil things that I am targeting -- not the people themselves. Salva31 11:43, Apr 14 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for supporting my nomination on RfA, it failed because of Wikipedia's minority rule system, although I thought 21/8 support was sufficient. It was also cut short by 12 hours. But your vote of confidence is greatly appreciated, now let's build an encyclopedia! --Bjarki 14:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your theory of evolution changes

"... Currently, the modern synthesis is the most powerful theory explaining variation and speciation, and for use in the science of biology, it has replaced other explanations for the ..."

The problem i have there with your change is that it's not just biology, but many other scientific fields such as psychology and medicine. It was better the other way. Paulr 16:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the typo

<<..On your user page, you state that "evolutionists are people who believe evolution is a fact.">>

I certainly didn't intend to say that. Yes, you are right. I fixed it.

<<..I'd think that either you believe in foo, or you know foo to be a fact.>>

Maybe. But for myself, I would say that "facts" are the pieces of evidence--not the conclusions to which the "facts" point. Since we must proceed by induction, we must carefully distinguish 1) "facts" from our 2) conclusions about those facts. Would you agree?

<<..would you like me to nominate you?>>

I would be greatly honored and delighted.  :)) But we might wait for three months, please, until I would have a reasonable schedule so that I could respond to everybody's questions. I am in the middle of some writing and in the middle of the code of some gorgeous computer modeling and cannot attend appropriately to everyone's questions at the moment. Thanks again, but let's do it later. ---Rednblu | Talk 18:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I notice that the Wikipedia system's time zone correction gives me a different time stamp for that deletion log record in different time zones--or something like that. So the time stamp I gave you for that deletion record is probably wrong for your time zone. Anyway here is a working link for that other half of that discussion we were examining. That link should work--until such time as they reorganize the Wikipedia:Deletion log again.  ;) None of this matters, of course, as long as no one else brings it up again.  :)) Are we in trouble again yet? ---Rednblu | Talk 00:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rules

Can you elaborate your suggestion? I want to improve it for sure. I'm however dealing fragile "Genocide" and other "POV" articles so I get rather harsh fire :(. I do not want a heavy language. I want a polite tone that wont irritate people :) --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm...

I'm just curious, since we are going to talk about the meaning of "evolutionist," I thought I would mention that Graft and Slrubenstein seem to be my best examples of the former, judging by their input on the Talk:Evolution page. Salva31 18:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rednblu

I noticed you spoke of nomiating Rednblu for admin. I have spent a lot of time with Rednblu on talk:creation-evolution controversy. He is not the kind of user I would want as an admin. Have you ever seen this user do anything worthwhile on Wikipedia? Bensaccount 00:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kim, you are one brave boy. Braver than this boy. I had just been thinking myself of nominating Rednblu, but feared the pre-ponderance of sentiments such as Bensaccount's. Most definitely, given Red's tendency to argue for the enemy (the believer) in exploring NPOV, it is better that the suggestion came from you, who traditionally would argue opposite him. In any case, I am certain Rednblu would make a courteous and restrained admin. And I very much doubt that anybody along the way will say otherwise. They will say he is incessant in pushing for inclusion of all POVs and that he is "that legendary Usenet troll". But that is low, ad hominem laziness. Regardless of how any Usenet posters may have soured on him in the there and then, this is the here and now, he is a good man, and he is good for Wikipedia, as you and I know. Tom Haws 14:44, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Search engine optimization

Thank you for the revert. I didn't want to do that singlehandedly. Now that you've reverted once, I'll be glad to back you up if it becomes an edit war. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:15, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but I need help

I have been as patient and understanding to all of my debators as personally possible; they have nevertheless fired several blatant personal attacks and attempted to inferiorate my opinions and arguments, which are 100% legitimate. Please see my user discussion page for examples. As of now, my comments have been removed from the discussion page without my consent, which would technically be considered unconstitutional if this were a court of law. Although this is not a court of law, I am assuming wikipedia is not an autocracy, and that I have the right to petition and not have my opinions removed like wikipedia is some sort of second-hand communist-dominated encyclopedia. If my opinions were unscientific, then why were they removed from the discussion page? You must understand how much I am holding onto my patience when I see this happen! My arguments were about editing the article, but after having to chronically repeat myself, the talk page did get quite conjested. Is this not slightly mysterious to you? Do you think that people like that are going to spread their beliefs if other people know that they are acting in such a manner - removing the most powerful of others' opinions but keeping their own? If I have to give my entire life to keeping worms like that from infiltirating my country's education system and brainwashing kids until they bring guns to school wearing shirts that say "natural selection," on Hitler's birthday and shoot up their classmates, then I will! Some of the content in that article is NOT NPOV! It is very capable of being NPOV if about two sentences were removed from it, but for some reason, those two sentences seem to be so important (remarkably they are both targeted towards Christianity and have absolutely 0---NOTHING---0 to do with evolutionary theory) that such a turbulent, outrageous debate must occur instead. PLEASE- I love wikipedia. It is an incredible horizon and a wonderful addition to the Internet. Let's make sure we consider the most important subjects as carefully as possible. Salva 15:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whew! Right, one step at a time. I just get really worked up when I see the Enemy working so strongly in our system of education. Again you are right, as always =). The first segment is below, which can just be replaced by a period. Abiogenesis has not replaced ID in Biology or anywhere else.

• , and for use in the science of biology, it has replaced other explanations for the origin of species, including creationism and Lamarckism.
• The second is the graphic mockery of the Icthyus in the last part of the article. It is offensive, (especially since we just got a new Pope!)

Salva 21:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kim, I answered Salva's comment on my talk page. Sorry I have been slow at assisting him. Tom Haws 20:12, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sound of One Hand Clapping

I've noticed here and elsewhere, the "discussions" seem one-sided because the hosts' tend to respond on the originating user's Talk page. Is this a Wiki custom?

Also, you wrote on my Talk page, "Hi, first up I noticed that some vandalism correction had gone awry, and fixed it." Nothing went awry, and there was no vandalism. I was just doing some housekeeping, eliminating postings I considered obsolete. Since you posted a followup to Mel's post, I did restore his for the sake of continuity.

Finally, thanks, but I know about the time stamp. I'd accidently left it out and had stuck it in immediately. Didn't it show up when you saw my post? — Jack (J M Rice 23:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Hey, wait, it's still there!?Salva 02:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ahhh, never mind that. I owe ya one, Kim ;-). Salva 02:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VFD Question

Dear Kim, Thank you for asking your question again. I did miss it. I proposed a VFD because there has been no action on the proposed merger --- or anything else!. I'm happy for the page to remain as a couple of sentences, although previous experience suggests that it'll be edited constantly until it's (once again) a party political broadcast for the Discovery Institute. Ian Pitchford 13:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Teach the Controversy

Mel Etitis, who I understand is an Admin, has now put his stamp of approval on a highly POV intro to this article, after much discussion had led to a reasonably good consensus intro. His taking the side of a highly POV version by a highly contentious editor who made no attempt to seek constructive discussion on the talk page is inappropriate and inconsistent with Wiki policy. The fact that he is doing this as an Admin tells me that the some actions contrary to consensus are approved by the ultimate powers that be on Wikipedia. I guess power trumps consensus here, as in the real world.

Thanks for your help in trying to keep everyone acting in good faith consistent with Wiki policy. Apparently Mel has the power to push his POV at will and can rally numbers to crush the minority who are trying to cooperate and discuss in good faith, and to ensure that all information is included in Wiki in a neutral manner. He has consistently misstated my position, ridiculed me and made false accusations against me.

His exercise of his Admin power is effectively driving away editors like me from the process. If you can do something, great, let me know. Otherwise, I will likely bow out of the rigged process. At least now I have experienced a little bit of what it must be like to be a dissident in a police state, or living in the book 1984. --VorpalBlade 15:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

--VorpalBlade 14:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. I have done nothing on this page as an admin. Indeed, because I had become involved in editing it, I placed a request for the page to be protected in the usual way rather than protecting it myself. I have continued to behave in that way. The History and archives will show that clearly.
2. On the other hand, I tried for some time to moderate the dispute, trying to curb both (highly polarised) sides in the debate — primarily VorplaBlade and Ungtss on one side and Ian Pitchford on the other. Again, the History and archives will bear that out.
3. It finally became clear that moderation wasn't going to work; the article has attracted too many PoV pushers, who are not prepared to accept genuine compromise. Some of them attept to find the appearance of compromise, some don't even bother to do that. Having looked at the article again, and at the many articles with which it overlaps, I've come to the conclusion that it would be better merged with Discovery Institute, and in any case should be considerably shorter. I've thus argued and voted for that position. I've done little editing on the article, apart from a little tidying of English, links, etc.
4. VorpalBlade, on the other hand, has made whhoelsale reverts of material with which he disagrees; in that, he's like those on the other side of the debate, but unlike them he's reverted unrelated, later edits simply in order to get back to his version. For example, my correction of the 'Merge' template and a number of internal links, together with corrections to the English, were simply swept aside in his eagerness to return the article to his PoV.
5. The business about police states and rallying numbers to crush opposition is not only childish but astinishingly out of keeping with the facts. Not only have I not rallied anybody, but I notice that a number of people not hitherto involved have suddenly appeared, all voting 'keep' in the VfD. If rallying users in order to crush opposition is a bad thing, then I assume that VorpalBlade will be issuing a complaint... or is it only bad when (imagined to be) on the other side?

• I've commented on Kim Bruning's peculiar and very non-neutral behaviour in all of this on the VfD page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with Mel's characterization of my actions, but rather than respond point by point, I think anyone can look at the discussion page and see for themselves. I do revert massive wholesale deletions without discussion, and I believe that is proper. Mel, you should too. Wiki policy does not call for "tidying" up the article after such bad behavior. MPLX deleted 120+ lines of text with no attempt at constructive discussion or consensus seeking, and you think "tidying" is the right response?

I am sorry if I implied that you rally numbers. I think others may, but I have no reason to think you did. I apologize for that.

I still think you were not neutral as to which version of the page you asked to be frozen before. Again, I invite anyone to look at the record.

I think a good Admin should encourage junior editors and try to find common ground. I think my record is pretty good, and at least reasonable. I have complimented others with whom I disagree, including Monk, Ian and Mel; yet, correct me if I have missed one, but I do not think you have said one kind or encouraging thing to me. That is not the mark of a good Admin. --VorpalBlade 14:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talking behind your back

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents.

Sam Spade 10:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2 "conflicts" in which I was involved

• Charles Enderlin -- converging on a common version of the article.
• Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism and Image talk:Davos Switzerland G8 Summit.jpg -- basically User:SlimVirgin and myself, taken in a crossfire, are trying to friendly compare our notes in spite of the noise :p Rama 18:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Just thought I'd say hi, Kim, since I haven't recently. I also wanted to say that I hope the stuff at WP:AN/I won't deter you from keeping up your good work around here. I agree with your positions, I think you were extraordinarily calm and polite, and while I recognize that Mel might have initially been confused by your comment about voting (let's face it, Wikipedia is often bad about living up to the consensus commitment), I have no idea why he continued to react to you in the way he did. Seems very odd to me--I don't know Mel well at all, but I'd never noticed him reacting in this way. Anyhow, my presence here is very on-again off-again right now (stressed with other things, and realizing I need to be able to back off my commitment here from time to time if I'm going to contribute over the long haul), but I noticed the discussion and thought you might appreciate an encouraging word. All my best, Jwrosenzweig 05:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adminship nomination

Kim, thanks for nominating Rama. He's a lovely person and an excellent editor. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:40, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

(Xiong and Netoholic) vs Snowspinner et al -- RfArb

Netoholic is listed as an involved party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Xiong, Xiong vs Netoholic. You are noticed as Netoholic's mentor.

Please note that this is not a hostile request for further findings against Netoholic. I am content with ArbCom's current findings and am happy that he and I go peacefully and do not tread on each other's toes. — Xiong熊talk* 01:54, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

Please note that the scope of this RfArb has increased to include Snowspinner. I should provide a link to the new request section title, vis: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#(Xiong and Netoholic) vs Snowspinner et al.

You wrote: Xiong should be instructed to talk with the mentors. Should he not be satisfied by our attempts to address his concerns... -- I no longer feel I have a bone to pick with Netoholic, so I'm not quite sure how you fit in. Please read carefully the paragraph above. Netoholic is an involved party, not a guilty party, not an indicted co-conspirator, not a party due for another round of bashing. I'm actually pretty confident of 3 mentors of such stature, seniority, and sheer grit being able to keep Netoholic on a short leash. I don't anticipate any future problems with him, and I'm certainly not going to take whacks at him when he's down -- wouldn't be sporting, wouldn't be constructive, and isn't necessary. When I fought back, I did so in self-defense, and that time is over -- at least, vis-a-vis your mentee.

It would seem to exceed your portfolio as Netoholic's mentor, but if you feel you are able to exert some pressure on his friends, former allies, outraged bystanders, and common meddlers to let the matter drop, then I will certainly welcome it. I think that's preferable to stirring the pot until enough incendary scum comes to the top to burst into a new feud. — Xiong熊talk* 11:22, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

I like your attitude. There's some issues we gotta talk through sometime, but I like your attitude :-) Kim Bruning

Thanks for the vote of confidence. What do you think ought to be done? — Xiong熊talk* 12:19, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

For now, I suggest we let the current storm blow over. Just do some noncontroversial editing for a while, be noncommittal on policy, and that should just about do the trick, it's what I sometimes do too. :)

If you feel that that's not going to work, or if you get into substantive trouble later anyway, feel free to drop me a line, discretely per e-mail is good too!

Kim Bruning 10:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic's page move from Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits back to User talk:Xiong/TC

Personal opinion: I think that this page move crossed the line. User:Xiong's article deserves to be in the Wikipedia namespace as a Wikipedia thinktank article just as much as his Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful. It is long-winded, and it does cover things that probably don't belong in the article. On the other hand, for those who are visually oriented it gives a good idea of how transclusion works, and it does a better job of covering the problems of using templates instead of just focusing on the problems of meta-templates. BlankVerse ∅ 01:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I was ignored by Netoholic (nothing new—look at my evidence!), and you were reverted (after you asked NOT to be reverted). I've reported it as an injunction violation, but it looks like the arbitrators just want to get the case finished. Still, the case hasn't been recorded as a final decision (although the necessary votes are there for closure), so I count this an injunction violation that requires a 24 hr. ban. BlankVerse ∅ 02:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that the only rule that Netoholic will ever always follows is Ignore all rules ;-). The three of you mentors might think about creating one central method of contacting all of you at one time about Netoholic (perhaps User:Netoholic's Mentors?). BlankVerse ∅ 02:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules does not mean what you think it does.... it means essentially don't be worried about what rules exist, if their presence gives you stress. It does not mean disregard rules even though you know they exist. I've done neither in this case. That page, far worse thatn anything I was accused of, is a manifesto of all Xiong's desires for wikipedia. I see value in the informative portions of it, split amongst relevant pages, and would like to see it stay in user space, until it's contents can be redistributed. Please discuss on User talk:Xiong/TC, rather than here. -- Netoholic @ 02:36, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Already addressed

I've already documented my reasoning for why it is untimely for that page to be in Wikipedia: space. Please read User talk:Xiong/TC#Manifesto. -- Netoholic @ 01:18, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a limited answer

Hi, Kim. Thanks for your message. The reasons I refered to involve what I percieve to be an irrational, even unfair, defence on your part for actions on the part of User:Sam Spade which I find objectionable, in more than one instance. I am afraid I cannot provide you with further details since both myself and Sam Spade made a commitment not to discuss this issue until further steps in the dispute resolution are undertaken. Normally, then, I would not even say that much (and this includes my aforementioend comment, too), but since Sam Spade has acted in a manner which I find dishonoured this joint-commitment (namely but far from limited to my recent RFA), I feel comfortable in actually writing this to you. As an aside, I found my singular (and absolutely indirect) interaction with RickK rather unpleasent; how's that for probability? El_C 13:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Netoholic/Mentoring

Please add this page to your Watch list, and feel free to bring any relevant discussion there. -- Netoholic @ 00:19, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

And check the history, as he reverts anything critical of his actions. - Omegatron 01:27, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Possible Net situation

[3]Snowspinner 21:28, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Possible Snowspinner situation

[4] -- Netoholic @ 23:34, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi Kim! Here's my outline, just as you wanted.

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. Well, I would most certainly be willing to help out with ANYTHING. However, seeing I'm an extremely active stub sorter, I would be active with speedy deletions. I also frequent the VFD page a lot, so I would be active there as well. I particularly hate vandals, so I would not be shy about blocking vandals if requested. As I gain more and more pages on my watchlist, I would be happy to make use of the rollback feature on vandalized pages.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. You better believe there is. I am proud of my stub sorting activities, which I like to consider as my way of helping keep down the already massive overhead on the Wiki servers. I am also a member of the Cleanup Taskforce (my desk is here), and I will gladly accept articles and clean them up. However, my crowning contribution to Wikipedia is the Civil Air Patrol article. I am a CAP member myself, and I redid the entire article (with copyedit help from bish). My contributions to that article effectively turned that article into a Featured Article. I certainly think that's something that I'm proud of :-D

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?

A. One, unfortunetely. However, I think I dealt with it in a mature manner. I believe I was completely justified in my position, as the edit conflict that occurred was offensive in my eyes. I came to rest on the editor's comment that it was a joke in poor taste, and I could agree with that. The issue consequently was resolved. I asked for help on IRC and a third party effectively initated a solution that satisfied all parties. As far as other users go, I try to get along with anyone and I don't set out to tick anyone off.

Edit count at time of post: 1441. Kate's tool will give you an updated count.

Anything else? I think I more or less covered everything :-) Linuxbeak 23:26, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress&diff=prev&oldid=12736702

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress&diff=prev&oldid=12737843

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jmabel&diff=prev&oldid=12735955

That's where I had a disagreement. Linuxbeak 20:11, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Gniffel

Gniffel :) 62.194.141.112 21:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

langijes

I am a native speaker of English and Urdu. My Hausa is rusty, but comes back to me in flashes. (Been out of Hausaland for a while.) Smattering of German.

I saw the language labels, but haven't had the bandwidth to go and figure out how and what to put on my page. Are there really short instructions somewhere? Can you tell me what to do?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:28, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

No chat?

Missed you on chat today. I'll assume good faith and hope to catch you tomorrow. Meanwhile, a free gift of another 24hrs. — Xiong熊talk* 04:41, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Netoholic

You are the "mentor" who has most recently been active on User:Netoholic's talk page, so you get this.

Netoholic has been editing various policy pages in an effort to better define what is and is not policy, and for various other reasons. In general, these edits are being reverted by a wide variety of other editors. e.g. [5][6][7][8]

Now, I don't necessarily disagree with everything Netoholic is doing. Some of his edits are useful.

However, I don't believe he should be doing it given the arbcom decision and mentorship. Frankly, I believe that he should leave the policy areas alone for a time, or at least discuss and get consensus first before changing things. What I am seeing is a lot of bold editing, a fair number of reverts, and one and two sentence explanations on the talk pages at most. Not a lot of consensus building. I think he should focus elsewhere, such as on the articles perhaps.

I'm on a very slow connection for the next couple days but in time I'll go through his policy edits with greater care as I believe they do need more careful review than they have received.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I've already discussed about the semi-policy page. In reality, my tagging is being well-accepted, so it is an exaggeration to say "in general, these edits are being reverted". The opposite is true. Of course, some editors are confused about some of the distinctions, but those are being worked out. -- Netoholic @ 03:17, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Babel tags

Put user language templates on my user page (at the top). Please take a look. I had to create two new templates in the process :D—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 04:17, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Umm..."would be useful"? I am sorry if I wasn't very clear. See my user page: iFaqeer (talk · contribs); I already created the tags...

Oh, and see:

http://urdu-ke-naam.blogspot.com/2005/05/urdu-speaking-wikipedia-users.html

and

http://urdu-ke-naam.blogspot.com/2005/05/on-being-saahib-e-zubaan.html

We are actually breaking some very interesting ground here on the Internet as the Urdu language starts to mature in its use on this medium!

Thanks for pulling me into this discussion/process.

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 07:29, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Hey, Hey

Hello again Kim! I was wondering if you could possibly take the time to really do me a huge favor and check out the Talk:Creationism page. What is your opinion on what's going on there? Also, since I am still new at Wiki - what is the best thing to do when your user page is vandalized? It seems some lunatic (Carrionluggage) is getting off by destroying my lovely work. I have no idea who he/she is - any advice from ye who calms the storms of conflict would be stupendous! Thanks, =) Salva 02:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Teletraffic Engineering

Hi there! The discussion on 'using WP for student projects' seems to have run its course, so I have closed it and drawn conclusions. Could you please look over them and indicate on the talk page whether you agree? Thanks. Radiant_* 09:45, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Not precisely. The point of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus, of which the above is a sub, is to establish consensus on some matter and then allow for action thereon. Please read Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus for details. As a side point, imho a poll is pointless unless it has an ending date. Radiant_* 10:57, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Breaking Be Bold

Kim I caught someone on 3BBB I believe. Someone who explicitly has been Breaking Be Bold three times. See http://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Overleg_gebruiker:Dedalus#ROFLMAO. Maybe I'm totally wrong in my approach to consensus editing. Some others are BBB as well, some are on 2BBB, but none of them 3BBB except the one I mentioned. I'm wondering if the concrete overshoes clause does apply in this case. Gebruiker:Dedalus 13:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello

So, it's all your fault is it? Everyone being so nice to each other. It's just sickening. :p --Silversmith 19:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Addicted? Me?

I can stop anytime I want. Muhahahaha!!!! Ta bu shi da yu 01:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Tsushima Islands

Thanks for the page protection — it needed it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Mr Bruning, may I ask for an unprotection of Tsushima Islands? Nine days have passed and there is no more debates going on. It's getting ridiculous at this rate. Thanks.

Tan 20:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikimeet

I'd actually love to come, but I really shouldn't. Regretfully, I have other duties to attend to. Tell Jimbo I said hi, though. (Just kidding, he wouldn't know me. :-)

Oh, and consider archiving your talk page again. It's getting awfully big, and the old stuff is really old. :-) JRM · Talk 17:48, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett

Hi Kim, if you get a minute please take a look at Birmingham talk page, an annonymous user has been editing but more to the point deleting brum articles and then he even deleted the evidence on the talk page, I am sure it is Pigs on the wing but cannot be 100% sure? Thanks Nick Boulevard 17:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Reference desk query

There is a reference desk query about using an untagged image on an external site - Wikipedia:Reference desk#Usage of Thomas Munzer jpeg picture. I have found the image (Image:Munzer.jpg) on a Dutch language site [9]. I spotted your name in the native Dutch speakers category, and was wondering if you could ascertain what the liscence on the image on that site is and update the image tag and correct my answer at the reference desk if needed. Thanks, Thryduulf 23:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll take another look at that language - I'm normally fairly good at working out what langauge is what! Anyway, thanmk you for your help. Thryduulf 06:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Some light in the darkness

Please see: this. I've only just finished it, and I need help adding some people to get the ball rolling. Your most competent and good-spirited help would be appreciated. Cheers, --Silversmith Hewwo 13:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Dropping a line

Hi there! Regarding your comment on being bold and potential cardiac arrest, I thought I'd give a few examples of what I'd consider bold. What I usually mean is either start something that some people are already talking about but not doing(such as this); or taking a bunch of stub articles and combining them into a list (Category:SI_derived_units_of_length is next on my list). But I'd be happy to discuss my actions if people disagree. HTH! En groetjes uit Rotterdam :) Radiant_* 15:07, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Dropping a line

User talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 1

Feel free to leave a message for me here! :-) Kim Bruning 09:27, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hello again!

Feel free to censor to your little heart's content. That is what I will expect. ---Rednblu 22:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Creationism and macroevolution

Hello Kim. I have moved creationism and macroevolution to user talk:Kim Bruning/Creationism and macroevolution, and the talk page to user talk:Kim Bruning/Talk:Creationism and macroevolution per your request at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Creationism and macroevolution. I counted the votes as 11 delete, 5 keep (including one I judge a troll, User:Crevaner), and 1 neutral, so I moved the page and deleted the resulting redirect. For what it's worth, Wile E. Heresiarch 03:35, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hacker

Usually in the phrase "so-and-so can't do X, let alone Y", Y is usually the more difficult talk. I rate writing code as harder than understanding how computers work. So I would think the modified wording was correct, not the one you rv'd. (I didn't write the new wording, BTW...) Noel 11:53, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, there are levels of understanding, both on the programming side, and the operation side. But I'd say you neeed a pretty deep level of operational understanding for a lot of these breakins - e.g. the ones that uses buffer overflows of buffers stored on the stack. But now that I think about it, if it's debatable, the correct action is not to debate which is harder, but change the wording.... :-) Noel 12:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Changing room

Hi, Kim, I saw your comment on 65.49.77.82's work on Changing room. :-) Isn't that the wildest disambiguation page you've ever seen? I blame myself, because my friend George created the page yesterday as a redirect to Dressing room, and I changed it into a modest disambig between "means Dressing room" and "is also a play by David Storey". I thought why not, the play is quite well-known, someone might actually come looking for it. But if I'd known it would stimulate someone's imagination to that extent, I might have thought twice. :-) Sheesh, I can't believe it. "Change room" is in danger of non-uniqueness because "the phrase 'change room' can also mean for a person to move from one room to another room, or to change a room booking (e.g. to change rooms at a hotel)"? And the play Hapgoood had better be disambiguated here, because that's real ambiguous!

There should be a special re-ambiguation template for this page: "This is a re-ambiguation page, for bringing together various pages that might otherwise never meet." Best regards, --Bishonen 18:02, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Erm, isn't you are utterly out of your mind a little bit harsh for a VFD nomination? Ambi 10:24, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This was wrt some vfds on slashdot related articles. I was rather surprised, but toned down my language later. Most of the articles in question were kept Kim Bruning 17:10, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Esoteric programming language

Hi. Just wanted to ensure you that I looked at every article on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Esoteric programming language related at least twice, and also voted to KEEP some of them, but most are in my opinion rubbish. That they were added all at once may be a bit overwhelming at first, but would you rather prefer me to add three articles a day to VfD for the next month? Again, my goal is to improve Wikipedia by keeping/improving the good and throwing out the bad. I am sure you have the same goals, and we just differ in what's good. That's what VfD is for. By the way, did you actually look at all articles before you voted KeepAll? Even O xml and TMMLPTEALPAITAFNFAL? Just curious -- Chris 73 Talk 16:09, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

talk:human

I reverted your edit 'cos you inadvertantly blanked the entire talk. It's ok... I did the same a few edits back. - UtherSRG 15:51, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like your creative definition of humans re: Turing machine. Very provocative. I read the NPOV doc and tutorial again, and now I'm not sure where to continue our discussion about the meaning of NPOV. I've no doubt it is of high importance, so I kinda think we ought to start (maybe move our seed comments to) a new main section at Talk:human where we can come to a better understanding. Tom - Talk 16:25, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tom - Talk 20:35, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for expending the time and effort to spell out your thoughts about NPOV on my talk page. The idea of content is an important one. And the idea of improving the formulation of our NPOV docs is also an important one. Currently, I am afraid our NPOV docs tend to be bloated (a continual problem of the wiki format). There's a high probability that imprecise and non-useful ideas get added into the docs. I noticed that the wp:NPOV tutorial and WP:npov examples are far from perfect. I am a little in doubt about the formulation of fact vs. opinion, and I think that could be improved along the lines of what you are proposing: A fact is knowledge about which there is no known dispute today by otherwise reasonable people. Tom - Talk 20:35, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the fundamental concern you are trying to address, and I support addressing it. NPOV needs to avoid producing non-encyclopedic articles. I have a few thoughts.

• First, for controversial definitions there may be a need, even when using facts for the definition, to say that "Foo is P, Q, and R, but from some POVs, foo is defined more importantly in other ways." For the most controversial terms (not just controversial subjects), such disclaimers first may be necessary. Suppose that I represent a significant major POV when I say "A human is a child of God." Would it then be POV to say, "Human: 2 legs, builds buildings, etc." without saying, "but according to some POVs, more importantly defined in other ways."?
• You may have set up a little bit of a straw man in both of your worst NPOV examples, though this is probably simply hyperbolic liberty. Our policies don't encourage articles devoid of content. We all readily recognize such things as undesirable. In reality, an article that follows the current direction of the Human discussion to its conclusion need not lack content at all, though we would of course prefer to have some sort of definition (or definitions) right at the beginning. If definition is in the first paragraph, it is probably not a problem to have two or three competing definitions, I would think.
• Your ideal human example has content, but it is still from a humanist perspective and lacks the defining POV of a believer in God. We see in it an animal that happens to pray to God, not a child of God that happens to inhabit an animal body. It therefore falls short of presenting all human "knowledge".

  2 arms, 2 legs, breaths, possibly possesing a spirit, prays to God (where applicable) and paints paintings and builds buildings.

But again, I very much agree that NPOV content must be encouraged.

Admin

I just read Wikipedia:Administrators. I guess all experienced and trustworthy editors are supposed to be admins, and it is not supposed to be "a big deal". I am a little afraid it puts some users on edge, but I suppose the status can be held quietly most of the time. OK, it sounds good. I appreciate your nominating me. Tom - Talk 15:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks again, Kim. I don't know what I did to deserve your delightsome words, but I am in your debt and I will remember it. Tom - Talk 16:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gee, Kim. I am touched and led to sober contemplation of the trust that has been extended. Call me a big crybaby (maybe I am getting old--at 38???), but my eyelids are puffy. I will read everything you suggest and grow into this slowly. Tom - Talk 18:47, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oops. Tiny embarrassment. I didn't realize that sysop=administrator. 8-) Tom - Talk 19:25, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RfA

Hey, I just wanted to thank you for your support, and let you know once again what a pleasure you are to have here, and how much your genorosity and wisdom are appreciated. Please keep up the good work, and let me know of anything you would like my help with. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 21:53, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Green Hill Zone

I appreciate your explanation, but I'm still not completely convinced. Is that decision tree listed here somewhere? By that model everyone could vote "merge and redirect" and since there's no "consensus to delete" the article would have to remain. By my count I have 8 keep-only votes out of 27 (discounting one "edit" vote, as edit is not a choice), the others are "keep or merge", "merge", "delete or merge" or "delete". So if any consensus exists it seems the consensus is to merge and redirect, which is what I did. Nothing was deleted. Also I believe anyone can do a merge and redirect without it being brought to VfD at all, making the VfD vote somewhat moot. -R. fiend 20:41, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My main point is that this isn't s delete, it's a simple merge and redirect. Information was moved, none was lost. I'll grant there may not have been a delete consensus, depending on how votes are counted. Our counts may differ because I'm counting a "keep" vote separate from a "keep or merge" vote. Since I merged the article a "keep or merge" vote is at least partially a vote in favor of my actions. Since this isn't a deletion I'm not sure how important the vote even is, but as I said, a majority did not vote keep. -R. fiend 01:17, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just to be clear here, when you say "continue as you were" do you mean I should go back to making GHZ a redirect, and when I catch hell for it from the Sonic fans (as I'm sure I will) you'll back me up on this? I've made it this far without ever having a real edit or revert war, and I don't necessarily want to start now. I guess its not too important, but I basically read from the VfD vote that a merge and redirect was a pretty good consensus, and a very good compromise, as the deletes outnumbered the keeps. I just sort of want to get this right, particularly since there's a decent chance that someone will take this as an example and start making unneccesary and redundnat articles for the other "zones" in the game, and I don't think VfD needs to be clogged with them. Thanks. -R. fiend 00:55, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

SEO

What was your basis for reverting that link today on Search engine optimization? Offhand, it looked kosher and useful to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:50, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, this one didn't look offhand like it was advertising anything, and seemed to have about 10 legitimate pointers on ethical means of improving one's search rankings. As you probably know, I'm another one of the people who often defends this article against linkspam, but this one didn't look to me like linkspam. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:39, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

I suppose so, I just tune that out & read the content. On that basis, though, what about all our links to IMDB? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:22, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Red and FM

Well, I appreciate it nonetheless. I will be answering your mail and adding some closing comments on Red's page, then it's up to them, I guess. Tom - Talk 14:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Protection of SkyOS

Would you be able to protect SkyOS, theres a mad edit war going on at the moment

Kiand 22:27, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Silly technical question re: user contributions

How do you find out how many contributions user has made? Tom - Talk 19:33, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I discovered a simple trick. Fiddle with limit= and offset= in the contributions URL. Thanks. Kate's script is a little intimidating to me. Tom - Talk 20:29, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Evolutionism

(put here by User:CheeseDreams, according to page history)

How about something like this for Evolutionism: {{disambig}}

Evolutionism can be

• Social evolutionism, an interpretation of anthropology;
• Belief in or advocacy of biological evolution

I think it's been established in the VfD discussions that the term is not solely the work of creationists. Gazpacho 09:55, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry that we are still unable to reach a consensus.

• Having grown up Southern Baptist in the US, I am quite familiar with creationism;
• Having quit church at 14 and pursued a scientific career, I am quite familiar with the basic concepts of evolution;
• Having grown up in the state where the Scopes trial took place, I am familiar with the controversy between the two

and it seems to me that you are taking a needlessly complex approach to a simple question of how to use a keyword to guide people to a topic of interest, and to avoid article overlap. Gazpacho 01:46, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi again!

I was waiting to archive my TalkPage--to give Mr. Monk plenty of time to decide where he wanted to memorialize our little tête à tête.  :) Is there a system problem with the TalkPage? Alternatively, we could talk on your TalkPage. ---Rednblu | Talk 01:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. ---Rednblu | Talk 01:53, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

SkyOS

Any chance you could remove the protection on the page? The edit war seems to have been sorted out, with an agreement to what should be changed in the article. Talk has been inactive for a couple of days now, so I assume that all objections that are going to be raised already have. Thanks! Shane King 10:27, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, hopefully things will stay civil there this time. Shane King 11:46, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Mediation help

Before going higher in the steps, Milnea Tudoreanu seems intent on deleting "Occurences of the word "Ochlocracy" from the article Ochlocracy. I have taken two examples from the OED and found other historical examples on the way it has been used. Tudoreanu deletes the lot of them. I think it would be NPOV if he found his own references of the word and added them also but he deletes them all. This is not right. He doesn't seem to acknowledge history but wants to change history to suit himself. I quoted from Mr. Muller, a very famous classical scholar of ancient Greece. Do you not think that this man is quite capable of knowing what the word means. I also quoted from Eric von Kuehnelt-Leddihn who uses the same term in the same way as Mr. Muller does 100 years later. Isn't that being pretty good evidence of the meaning of the term? I need help here to resolve this issue.WHEELER 18:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Any comment on the Evolutionism proposal above? Gazpacho 06:53, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have left several messages on Mr. Tudoreanu's Talk page. I have left several messages on the Talk:Ochlocracy which he as never responded to. Two different people have restored the occurences of the word and yet Mr. Tudoreanu still deletes the section without talking on the discussion page. I did everything so far I can think of the man is not dialoging. Can you talk to him?WHEELER 01:22, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk

I observed your communication with this user, and sympathize. After alot of unhelpful dialogue, I decided to write him an email (perhaps the one you read? ;) and cease communications. Unfortunately there are a number of difficult users I have come across recently, enough that the thought of removing myself from the wikipedia entirely has crossed my mind. I should hope it doesn't cross yours, you are the Creme de la Creme here on the wiki, have no doubt. Sam [Spade] 21:11, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, all your email to me consisted of was calling me a number vulgar four-letter names. As much as I want to I can't even post it's content here- it's so foul I'd likely be banned. Do you think using the wikipedia email system to send other editors vulgar insults is appropriate? I think it's highly inappropriate and I'll be pursuing this further.--FeloniousMonk 21:18, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Email is outside of the Wikipedia Jurisdiction. Take it up w my email provider, or system administrator. I could help you w contact info if need be. Sam [Spade] 21:46, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So you are just cynically manipulating a policy loophole to harrass another editor? Your deleting of my warning to you to cease this from your Talk page would indicate that indeed you are. Your vulgar, insulting email was inappropriate, not in the spirit of wikipedia, and not very christian.--FeloniousMonk 22:17, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello, Kim. :-) Sorry I didn't reply earlier about the advice matter -- I got distracted the day I saw your note and then (alas) I forgot about it. I hope you'll forgive my tardiness in replying. Since your note, FM has contacted me via email about Sam....so now I'm involved in another end of this dispute. I don't know how to advise you -- I've just seen FM's talk page, and I would tend to agree with you that I don't think he's engaging in the most productive dialogue with you. I'd encourage you to stay cool, though -- write a new article or two to burn off energy and give yourself time to think. I'd say your comments, while not uncivil, are certainly far more curt and confrontational than is your usual style. Personally, I'd suggest simply noting that Wikipedia:Accountability is not policy (despite FM's impression of it) but rather a guideline suggested by a few people that has never been either repudiated or accepted (honestly, it's a policy few ever seem to have referred to, judging by the traffiic on that page and its talk). I'd also suggest, very politely, that since there was a little confusion about this one document (and its status as policy), the user would be wise to be careful in making assertions in the future. And since you obviously feel this user has an habitual problem with biting newbies (which I don't know because I haven't seen it), I think you are right to say that you'll be watching them more closely, and you hope they'll take "don't bite the newbies" to heart as policy (which it certainly is). I would say, though, that there's no need to emphasize the seriousness of your warning -- if you warn someone and they laugh it off, I don't think there's anything gained by trying to impress upon them that you are serious. All it leads to is frustration for you, I think. Instead, merely do what you said you would -- keep an eye out. Ask for advice and help from other admins (obviously I'm not so reliable in this area -- sorry! -- but maybe leaving a note to several will get one or two responses). And ultimately, if the person doesn't take you seriously, then someone else (the AC, Jimbo, etc.) will make them wake up. But you don't have to feel responsible for waking them up unilaterally. Does this help at all? I hope it does. If you have other things you want to talk about, or if I did a poor job giving advice and missed things I should be considering, please let me know. My best to you, Jwrosenzweig 22:41, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate Jwrosenzweig's involvement here, and I agree with his advice and will take it to heart. I hope the other parties will as well. I believe that I have not violated any policies in a way significant enough to warrant a warning from an admin. If I have, I not been shown any proof of it. Again, if someone would show me exactly what, how and where I violated specific policies, I can then avoid repeating the same mistake, and will drop any protest over the warning I recieved from Kim.--FeloniousMonk 00:42, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Kim, I have asked you several times to stop constantly badgering me. Jwrosenzweig has also spoken to you here about it as well. Absent any specific official determinations that I have indeed been wrong, much less any credible allegations from anyone other than you, I consider your missive to [[User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#FeloniousMonk |Jimbo]] to be badgering of the worst, most despicable sort. I must insist again that you stop it now or I will be compelled to seek whatever recourse wikipedia provides me to protect my good name against your onslaught.--FeloniousMonk 21:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tit for Tat

cheers for the re-write, i had left my book with the stuff about it at home. (this message from Michaledwardmarks)

Stephen Bronner

Regarding your request at Talk:Stephen_Bronner, I'll get some ISBNs up there this weekend sometime. ExplorerCDT 22:37, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• UPDATE: I finally finished getting the ISBN numbers on the Stephen Bronner page. That is, all except for one book on which I could not locate the information. Lastly, the article will be expanded over the next week to include discussion of his theoretical contributions, etc. Just wanted to follow up with you on that topic. --ExplorerCDT 05:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey

Sorry to see you enduring so much harassment, on Jimbo's talk page no less! It's hard to think of someone less deserving of such abuse than yourself... I feel at least partially responsible, since he is probably more angry with me than with you (afaik all you did was politely warn him not to misrepresent policy to nube's?) and I assume you are playing the role of scapegoat, since I have been avoiding him like the plague ;). I have found in my life that there are some people who just don't like me, and who I don't get along w, and they are best avoided. On the positive side, a name like yours won't be able to be tarnished, no matter how many times someone tries to pull it thru the med. Thanks for being you, Sam [Spade] 16:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kim, don't worry, I'm not upset with you. I'm only slightly upset at Sam for his comments to FM (but I've managed to figure out how badly Sam was provoked into his comments). I'm quite upset with myself for taking a lot of what FM said at face value -- I think I landed too harshly on both you and Sam when I talked to you at FM's urging. Now, of course, that I have come to the defense of you and Sam, FM is apparently accusing me of impropriety. My remarks on Jimbo's page were expressing frustration with FM (who was using my name like a stick in several places) and not with you. Best wishes, as always, and keep smiling, Jwrosenzweig 23:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I have not accused you of impropriety. I'm saying you're mistaken over whether I've mislead you, and that your treatment of a friend's misbehavior has been excessively sympathetic while what you've expected of me has been unreasonable, i.e.; a double standard.

And just so we're clear and you don't accuse me of stalking you here, I'm just here to clarifying details that are material to the issues regarding the behavior of all those who are present here in this conversation.--FeloniousMonk 03:21, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ANSI Graphics?

• Hello, Why is ANSI (graphics) misleading? I don't understand -- while it's certainly not the most advanced graphics, it is, in a sense, graphics, in that it has primitives which are used to compose a screen. I do know there's another sense of graphics here, as in graphics versus text, but I would suggest that ANSI really blurs that distinction, if not eliminates it. --Improv 14:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What happened on VfD?

Confused. What's going on? Is someone making alterations that are causing problems? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:16, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I wasn't sure what you meant on the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bureaucratship

Hi Kim - I just wanted to let you know that I'm running for bureaucratship, and I would like to ask for your vote, be it good or bad. I'm sending this message to a few users I respect who have interacted with me recently. Thanks, Andre (talk) 00:30, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the supportive bureaucratship vote. Sorry I let you know about it so late in the nomination - I'll be running again though, and I'll let you know earlier. :) Andre (talk) 15:29, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

The grid

Thanks for your help and information on this, Kim - much appreciated. I had, in fact, already found one of the CERN sites conected with this, at [10] - guess I should have looked harder in the first place! Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 12:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikinews demo up and running

Hi!

I'm writing to let you know that the Wikimedia Board of Trustees has approved the first stage of the Wikinews project. There's now a fully operational English demo site at demo.wikinews.org. This will be used for experimenting with various review models and basic policies before the site is launched officially in about a week. demo.wikinews.org will become the English version later.

You voted for the Wikinews project, so I'm asking for your participation now. Everything is open, nothing is final. What Wikinews will and can be depends in large part on you. There already is a global Wikinews mailing list for discussing the project. If you are interested at all, please subscribe -- coordination is of key importance. There's also an IRC channel #wikinews on irc.freenode.net. Realtime discussion can help to polish up articles.

If you're looking for something to do, check out the articles in development and articles in review. Or start a new story in the Wikinews workspace, or ignore the proposed review system - it's up to you. I hope you'll join us soon in this exciting experiment.--Eloquence* 02:00, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern

I really appreciate your concern over the Endorsement thing, as it comes from someone who didn't already vote on the adminship. I know you've stood up for Sam on occasion too, and so I respect you greatly for being willing to take an unpopular view in public. However, I'd really rather let the matter rest at this point in time. The Arb Comm needs to get things together and become effective, and that probably means as little controversy as possible for the time being. Shane King 00:59, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

TFD

Easily fixed. What probably happened is that Ta bu shi da yu was removing other sections, and your section edit conflicted. -- Netoholic @ 15:31, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

Endorsements page

Sorry to bother/spam you, but I thought you might be interested in weighing in on the state of the endorsements page on its talk page. --Michael Snow 01:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

About your removing my comments from a Talk page

I consider your removal of my comments from the Endorsements Talk page to be highly inappropriate and unacceptable. It is particularly inappropriate when my comments were in response to your suggesting that I should leave wikipedia, which BTW, is implicit in the gravamen of my allegations against you in our upcoming mediation. My comments were appropriate, polite and explained your behavior to another editor who was questioning it. Please consider your actions before you remove my comments again.--FeloniousMonk 02:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Have your cake and eat it too?

Hi Kim,

Although I originally shared FeloniousMonk's desire for a "central square", in which I thought an examination of the candidates and their platforms could take place, I admit that I was either naive, misinformed, or overly optimistic to expect such a result given the size of this wiki. Jimbo's pronouncements as one of the founder's the site sealed it's fate.

I now support deleting any pages containing endorsements or opposition to the candidates, primarily because Jimbo, one of the founders of this site, has made it crystal clear that he discourages the activity on such pages. I've got to respect that. I also listed a few other reasons to get rid of both pages in the Straw Poll that tried to build a consensus to either combine the endorsement and opposition pages into one page, or leave them split. (I added a third option - Delete both pages.) If you have a moment, I hope you'll read my comments underneath that poll.

But that is neither here nor there.

At a meta-level, I've seen a couple of editors, including yourself, repeat the assertion that we are not here to simulate online governance, we're here to make an encyclopedia.

Your recent comments took it one more step, when you stated, "We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to do experiments in online governance or anarchy."

Well, I'll assert that you must have online governance, or you'll have anarchy.

The Arbitrators aren't really governors, and Jimbo, Angela, (and a third person whose name escapes me) are the only real legislator's that Jimbo acknowledges at the moment. (The Administrators are surely not legislators nor governors - many think they are "janitors with a mop".)

So, unless Jimbo wishes to enforce his benevolent dictatorship using stronger methods, Wikipedia is doomed to see exactly this type of tension, between complete anarchy and the vague rule of the few legislators who run this site, largely in absentia (they can only be on a small number of pages at a time, so they are largely absent) - hence my call for more legislators, or "governors", to spread the load when it comes to making policy. Otherwise you get deadlock when no consensus is reached on policy issues, such as the one you are arguing about on the Endorsements page.

The "foundation issues" are supposedly non-negotiable. If that is the case, why aren't they more strongly enforced?

By the way, I can't seem to find the link to where the foundation issues are listed (despite frequent references to them) - can you please provide a link to them? I think there are five of 'em, but it would be nice to see them in writing all gathered in one spot.

Regards,

--DV 07:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More Confirmation

New information!!!

Cicero titled the Spartan Government a Republic.

In The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race, Karl Otfried Muller quotes Cicero on Vol II, pg 190.

In Republica II. 23., Cicero writes "respublica Lacedaemoniorum". That means that the Latin word "Republic" is same/similar to the Greek word "politea".

This is great news!!!

Sparta is a republic. This is great confirmation! WHEELER 23:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi Kim. Please can you see my message at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#User:FeloniousMonk_and_User:Kim_Bruning. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 17:41, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

note

I've responded to your comment on my user page. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 01:50, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Licensing comment

You asked me some questions on licensing on my talk page which I answered. You can check them out there. This weekend I attended the NYC WikiMeetup where Jimbo was. I had a chance to talk with him about my multi-licensing project. I had to explain a little bit about what I was about, but he is perfectly fine with multi-licensing so that we can share with other projects. He understands the catch-22 with copyleft licenses: There is no true copyleft because there is no way to copyleft to any open/free license. In any case, I am not trying to change Wikipedia's license, just allow the articles to be used elsewhere for other free/open licenses. Jimbo is striving to get an improved GFDL 2.0, which appears to have a decent chance to see the light of day in a fashion that is pro-Wikipedia. Jimbo and his traveling crew had just discussed the project before the WikiMeetup. They had discussed slightly the issue of Watchlist pollution, but didn't seem to think this was more than a minor annoyance, of course that isn't to say it isn't more annoying for you, and I do apologize for any inconvenience. This probably goes without saying, but the 90% acceptance figure was "as of the writing of this message", and it changes as people choose to accept or not accept multi-licensing. It does not include those users who do not respond, for whatever reason. Hopefully I've helped to answer some of your questions or concerns. If not, feel free to ask more questions. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 01:32, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

GNAA

Thanks, Kim. I really appreciate you making the effort to understand what I thought I was doing when I listed that article the other day. I walked into a big mess but most people have, like you, been pretty understanding once they figured out I wasn't just stalking around knowingly trying to do what four other VfDs had failed to do. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Time to move

New information!!!

Cicero titled the Spartan Government a Republic.

In The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race, Karl Otfried Muller quotes Cicero on Vol II, pg 190.

In Republica II. 23., Cicero writes "respublica Lacedaemoniorum". That means that the Latin word "Republic" is same/similar to the Greek word "politea".

This is great news!!!

Sparta is a republic. This is great confirmation!

It is now time to move "Classical definition" into the Republic Article. Both Cicero and Sir Thomas use the word "Republic" for governments with monarchies. There is no basis whatsoever for Republic meaning "Government without a monarch". This is just the result of sloppy 19th century scholarship. Even if you read the Oxford Classical dictionary, the meaning of republic is simple the state. A monarch is head of a state. The republic article definition is pure nonsense. WHEELER 16:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On Modern Scholarship

You and others many times told me that we need "modern scholarship" on this subject of republics. You told me to read Montesquieu.

John Adams on Montesquieu: "That therefore the domocracies of Monesquieu....are all mere fragments of his brain, and delusive imaginations. (Menace of the Herd, von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, pg 6) It looks like John Adams did not have a favorable attitude towards Montesquieu.

Von Kuehnelt further writes: "The decline of classical education in favor of progressive "self-realization" has favored the increased use of wrong labels. (pg 7) "Confusion of words and meanings leads to the confusion of minds, and the confusion of minds breeds upheavals and revolution, as a well-known American once righty pointed out. (pg 10).

That's it in a nutshell. Just plain old confusion reigns.WHEELER 18:38, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Need comment

I have been added huge content onto Classical definition of republic and I would like your criticism and/or suggestions. I don't know, without some oversight, what looks good or not, and I would enjoy some constructive criticism, suggestions, ideas. I am still working on it and I need some feedback. Strange, that nobody has gone in and changed anything. Can I get some help please.WHEELER 14:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rienzo

Rienzo is still editing under further sockpuppets User:65.161.65.104, User:MahBoys, and User:Sandor, and User:130.236.84.134.

This is in violation of a 3 month ban from the arbitration comittee - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rienzo

I would appreciate an immediate block of these accounts. CheeseDreams 14:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Thanks

No problem- I tidied it up as much for everyone else as for myself; I wouldn't be able to sleep comfortably knowing there was a such a hideous and unreadable page out there. If you know of any others that need cleaning drop me a line. -- Maru Dubshinki

Come to think of it, this page could use some cleaning, but it's not my place to do so. -- Maru Dubshinki 11:35 PM March 8

Arbitration Committee case opening

Hi, I see you are back on. And I am having trouble with classical works and definitions. It seems that User:Snowspinner is out to get me and destroy all classical articles that I have written.

The Arbitration Committee has accepted the request for arbitration against you. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER/Evidence. Thank you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:19, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

Can I get your help in this regard?WHEELER 14:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support. Have you seen the article on the classical definition of republic where John Aylmer finds that his govenment is just like Sparta! Isn't there a deep connection between the ancient Greeks and the English. Look at the Bibliography of the classical republic on Wikipedia Wikinfo at the end and I think you will be pleasantly suprised and the connection between England and Greece. On the other note: I guess on the "Evidence" page, please explain the importance of Classical studies and the need that Old terms don't have the same meaning today. And that for Classical studies, meanings must be preserved for classical culture. There is a seperation and a need for dual articles, one on modern meanings and one for classical meanings and the two should not be mixed. And that I am not a bad guy but am a stickler for the defense of old meanings against being rewritten for the modern age.WHEELER 15:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for your message. You really did like it? Yes, it needs a little cleanup. That's great. you have made my day. And i whole heartedly agree that England should keep the Elgin Marbles and any other Greek artifact that it wants. Is it not interesting that England grew up the same as Doric Sparta? And during the Victorian age, The British thought of themselves as Greeks! and modelled much of their institutions on the Greeks. This is great.WHEELER 16:29, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• This is my first message of the day and I wanted it to be here. I am midway through Rahe's second volume. Wow, what an eye opener. The Founding Fathers were following the Machiavellian course to a tee. They were deists, and Lockean to a Tee. It's amazing. The influence of one man and the ball he started moving. Montaigne, Descartes, Bacon, Locke is clear to see in the Founding Fathers. They mixed everything together. Funny, how their "republic" based on commercialism instead of the martial ethic of the Greek republics only lasted 100 years. Modern republicanism starts with Machiavelli.WHEELER 14:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Problem solved

• Delete. According to WHEELER, "The question is 'Should people be voting on something they have not a clue on?'." On Wikipedia, the answer is "Yes, that's our policy." You've been around long enough to know this. You talk about the commercial ethos and the warrior ethos. Well, the Wiki ethos is that of open source. The theory is that, if we let a bunch of people without professional qualifications write and edit and delete pretty much as they please, a good encyclopedia will somehow emerge. I know you disagree with the theory and with the policy. That's certainly your privilege, and you have good company, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica pooh-bahs. As long as you stay here, though, you have to recognize that that's the way it works here. The MediaWiki software is available under the GFDL for anyone who wants to start a similar project but with stricter quality controls. By the way, to save you the trouble of clicking through to my user page, I'll admit right now that I'm not qualified as a classicist. JamesMLane 08:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• this comment is a quote that was placed here by User:WHEELER, the original source of the quote has not been linked. Kim Bruning 15:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. And it is very clear to me. This is in a sense "stricter quality control". Yes. But the "quality control" on wikipedia is Marxist and Fabian, Humanist and Modern. You have laid out very clearly to me that "who is in control here". The standards being that people who are ignorant of any subject but with a bias to protect can delete stuff off of Wikipedia. And that is not professional, academic, righteous (justice) or truthful. I understand perfectly what you are saying. I will not start another page nor work for Wikipedia (though I will transfer stuff here). I see clearly where this is going. I can do better and stop wasting my time here because surely I am. Thanks Mr. James MLane. You have certainly opened my eyes to the fundamental core of Wikipedia. And that yes, then Wikipedia is run by a cabal. And it is a fundamental lie that Mr. James MLane has exposed the fallacy "of free and open content". Wikipedia is not "an encylcopaedia" it's a "controlled information platform". The only standard here is on "form" and writing, but no professional standards and no standard on "truth".WHEELER 14:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, you have exposed the "hypocrisy" here. All evil is hypocritical as Cicero has pointed out. "Coherence" and "Consistency" are hallmarks of truth which is missing here at Wikipedia. If this is "Free and Open content" and "Open Source" then why is there a deletion notice on vanavsos and why did the Classical definition of republic get deleted? There is a major flaw in the system. Quite prescient of those who practise "dissimulation". You say one thing but do another and this is the sign of it. See, Consistency and whole heartedness coherency is the foundation of logic which is the foundation of truth. Illogicity shows forth!

I hate Machiavelli. You can see Hitler and Mussolini in his writings! go to Nazi 25-point program and you will see that the DAP's program called themselves "liberal"! Classical republicanism gave birth to liberalism and liberalism gave birth to communism and later on in the Hegelian dialectic functioning in 19th century Europe, gave birth to Fascism. Sorry, Machiavelli is a typical Roman. Not a Greek. All of humanism hates the greeks though they took some things from the Greeks. Machiavelli is the root of disorder in the world and is evil. Along with the rest of them. When you see the American collapse which is comming, you maybe understand then.WHEELER 15:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear Kim Bruning, this is user Classicjupiter2

Dear Kim Bruning, this is user Classicjupiter2. You left an extremely rude message on my talk page and I kindly ask that you do not do so again.Classicjupiter2 02:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey Kim

Hmmm... not sure about going back to K5. It's got a bit trollish, and when I get amongst trolls I tend to troll myself. Can't help it :-) I might pop onto IRC every now and again - if you want to get in touch just use Wikipedia's email button and I'll try to reply! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

notepad tip

Left one on some vfd page. Thought you might like to know :) --BesigedB ^(talk) 18:59, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wolverines (Germany, 1945)

Sorry I can't help you here but you may want to try looking for the German translation "Vielfraße". A German Google search of Vielfraße at [11] may be helpful. Good luck. hydnjo talk 01:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Have a look @ Wolverine (disambiguation). Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:29, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Would a {{attention}} header, and/or listing @ Wikipedia:Pages in need of attention help, do you think? I've never really been sure if those things serve their intended purpose, but if they do it'd be great to bring in an expert or 2. I do admit it would be weird to dispute ones own page, but... whatever works, eh? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm a doofus?

(this is a copy of a message placed on AndyL's page) The score is now Three out of Four. Your crew It seems that with the deletion of the Classical definition of republic in some certain respects made me a dummy and an idiot and an ignoramus. That seems to be the conclusion previous. So this made all my work suspect. And all the articles that I have started were going to be put up one after another for deletion. I have now won three out of the four. Your Mel etits was not right in the Arete battle, and the rest of your crew lost out In vanavsos and family as a model for the state, these articles have found merit, along with Arete (excellence). Now, Think here. Three out of Four. What does that tell you? That maybe I know what the hell I am talking about. If there is a "Modern Republic" don't you think that there ought to be a [Classical definition of republic] or [Classical republic]? because from where it sits now, it looks like the British Wikipedian modern republican party is all washed up!WHEELER 14:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The above response was written because another Wikipedian wrote something like this:

• Please see: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Is_there_a_cabal_on_Wikipedia
  • Specific example:

"There is no such hint. Creating another article under a different name for deleted material would be an attempt to cirumvent the VfD and would result in the new article being deleted and possibly in you being banned. Also, I'm certain that editors would start examining your other articles and start putting them up for deletion." AndyL 15:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I want to point out this sentence: Also, I'm certain that editors would start examining your other articles and start putting them up for deletion. Right after [Classical definition of republic] was voted off, they began: check out, Talk:Arete_(excellence) where the title was changed, and Deletion notices went up on Family as a model for the state and vanavsos. What was happening is that "once they proved" I was "erroneous" in one thing, they began to start voting and deleting my contributions to Wikipedia. They were impugning my scholarship and knowledge and my trustworthiness as a contributor. They used the voting off of the [Classical definition of republic] to impugn my character and have assaulted my honor and basically called me a liar and a no good scholar. That is the "inference" of their comments and actions. All these assaults on my contributions is a way of assaulting me and of calling into question my worth and my edits and my pages, therefore wrecking my reputation on Wikipedia.WHEELER 14:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also want to point out that they deleted Classical definition of republic and now SimonP has created a page called Classical republic. What gives? They delete my article and then start their own? This is not right. No Academic in any college or university would stand for this. Yet, I am treated this way. If Classical definition of republic is "original research" then why is there now a page titled Classical republic?WHEELER 14:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No problemo

Sorry for the intensity of that response... I should not edit early in the morning before I've had a chance to mellow out. Laid back is better, I think. Graft 19:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Compiler metaprogramming example userfied

Hi Kim,

I userfied the above article as you requested, since the consensus was to delete. It is located at User:Kim Bruning/Compiler metaprogramming example. --Deathphoenix 21:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) It's still a good example. --Deathphoenix 02:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Check it out

Please check out republic. And I don't know what I am talking about.WHEELER 16:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Classicjupiter2

I saw your question on User talk:Classicjupiter2... It seems very likely that Classicjupiter2 is this person. See also User talk:24.168.66.27, and pages linked from there. ~leif ☺ _HELO 21:16, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Blocking

I just wanted to say that I'm a bit annoyed at having been blocked for almost 24 hours for making 4 edits to an article when you didn't even look at them to see how many were reverts; the first one was clearly not by any definition. More annoying is that Zen-master, who did make 4 reverts, was blocked for only half as long (though this was not exactly your fault). In the future I trust you will look at matters more closely before being over eager to impose unnecessary blocks on editors. Perhaps you should consider seeking a second opinion on these matters before taking action. -R. fiend 15:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A Whole-Hearted Thanks

I would very much like to thank you for your help and support on my RfA. I appreciate it very much. Thanks again. – ABCD 17:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

wiki nomic

hey, let's start a game of wiki nomic! -Alex Krupp 18:43, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi, I got your message on my talk page. :) Thanks for the welcome! Oh, and thanks for adding my username and post time to that comment in Talk:Evolution. I hadn't realized that I needed to sign posts yet. Mayumi 23:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sam's copyvio thing

I seriously doubt my removing it was illegal. WP:CP is not the contact of record for official legal notices, for one thing. However, if he wants to restore the notice on there, fine: removing incriminating information from pages under the guise of copyright complaint is quite another.

I do not have respect for people who are trying to "game the system", and that's what he's doing. —Morven 23:16, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not truly mad at Sam (since he's done very little to me personally) but his wasting everyone's time with dumb little games like this infuriates me. The whole "ha! Another loophole in the rules!" thing he's doing is intolerable, IMO.

Yes, emails ARE copyrighted, but claiming copyright of an offensive little dig he sent in an attempt to have it removed is ridiculous and insulting and, as he well knows, would be laughed out of court. For one thing, it could well be argued that there was insufficient creative content there. —Morven 23:29, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Conclusion?

See my response to FM. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks for your note on my Talk page. I agree that long journeys start with small steps, it's just that it's not clear to me that this is even a small step (for the reasons I gave on FeloniousMonk's page). SS is notorious among many, many editors for his game-playing, his misuse of Wikipedia rules, and his PoV disruption of serious editing attempts on a variety of articles (in one of my first encounters with him he claimed that he'd never had such problems with other editors; then I discovered the trail of destruction in his wake). If he'd given a genuine apology, with none of the weaselly provisos, I'd have kept quiet, and held my breath in case the leopard was changing its spots, but in the circumstances, I'm afraid, it just looks to me like more of the same. Still, if I'm proved wrong, I'll be among the first to rejoice. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've just reviewed your involvement in this, and the tone of your remarks on SS's Talk page. It now seems clear that you're not a neutral observer, attempting to mediate in good faith. I've no idea why you should choose to side with SS on this, but that's your business. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments

By way of experiment (but also because I mean it) I'm personally thanking everyone who took the time to comment on Wikipedia:Countdown deletion. Without community input, the proposal is worthless, so thank you for increasing its value! JRM 14:45, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Something you wrote

Yesterday, you wrote this:

Stay cool, and instead of being mad at folks, try talking

with them gently. :-)

I used to have fun shouting matches with my developer boss in

my first job, so I don't mind your style of communicating

:-).

However, some folks are going to be turned off by it,

unfortunately. See what you can do to temper your words, and

have fun editing! :-)

I'll unblock you for now too, but like behave eh? :-) Drop me

a line if you have any questions.

And I just wanted to thank you for it. This is WikiLove in its best -- the attempt to reach out to a user having problems and encourage them in a positive way. It makes me happy to see such stuff. This is how Wikipedia should be, and you're a role model to us all.--Jimbo Wales 12:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now thats better than a Barnstar! Hooray Kim! (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very well done, Kim. -- Netoholic @ 16:17, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

Wikiquote

Hi, Kim Bruning. Thank you for your yesterday cooperation on English Wikiquote. Please take this flower as token of my appreciation: . You are always welcome on our project. Cheers, --Aphaea* 03:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

chat for a bit

I got word that you wanted to talk for a bit. I'm often on IRC (or can be), especially on the weekends. Drop me a talk page note when your on, or send me a Wiki-email. -- Netoholic @ 05:18, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

Secretaries, eh?

Finally users JRM, PZFUN and Oscar have my number; so if you see them but not me, you can ask them to phone or sms me to come online. I don't think they'll mind... much. :)

Oh, I've got your number alright... :-) JRM 14:00, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

You are the child's

You are the child's Agasides 19:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

why a 4 years old child? Why not a 3 years old, or 5 years old one? Agasides 10:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You dont to threaten me

catch the egg and mow it! :P

Palimpsest

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not jumping salty on you -- but it may be in bad taste to rewrite comments posted to Talkspace. I often reconsider comments I've made, but where necessary, I strike them out, thus, rather than allow any room for a claim that I am kicking sand over my tracks. Probably not a big deal for the comments you made and altered; but perhaps a bad habit to get into.

I'll reply on my Talk to the substantive issue you raised. — Xiong熊talk 14:53, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

The original wardwiki suggests modifying content at all times, since page history records all the content anyway. This is slightly less handy on wikipedia with its high traffic, so my personal rule is that I'm still allowed to modify, provided that:

• No more than a couple of hours have passed at the outmost. (Else people may have read and moved on)
• No one has directly replied to the message yet. (Else the context of the reply changes)
• or the actual intent of the statement does not change substantially, though it might be stated much more clearly. (this is called refactoring)

This seems to work fairly well.

Kim Bruning 15:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like you know what you're doing. Part of the problem with our community is that the interaction web is too sparse, and it's hard to know personally very much about each user. I agree, within those bounds, it's not a problem.

BTW, I'm trying to set a trend and avoid fragmented discussions. Wherever a discussion begins, that's where I follow it and that's where I reply. I did start out -- like most users -- as if user talk were email, but that results in a page here and a page there, and worse when other parties get involved. — Xiong熊talk 17:16, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Evolution

Thanks for the YHBT link and the perspective (and the refactoring). I ignored Salva's comments at first, but then got caught up in the argument. Thanks for injecting sanity. Guettarda 21:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness. If I got too far off topic, I apologize, but I felt that a certain user was attempting to directly and inappropriately undermine the validity of my arguments. However, I still do not understand why all of my commentaries were removed and the others kept??? I'm sure if you tried to see this all from my point of view you would realize why I consider that manuever to be somewhat disagreeable. As always, I am willing to negotiate. Regards,Salva31

My thanks. You are proof that angels really do exist.;)Salva31 5:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Kim. Long time no see. Human got unilaterally redone on March 3, and the ensuing talk started to get personal, so I had to drop out. I sure appreciate the level you kept our talk to last fall. Now, as to Salva31 and evolution, I will see what I can do. Evolutionism/creationism is kind of off my radar, but if Salva31 has specific and valid content concerns, I may be able to help him express them. Thanks again for your confidence. Tom Haws 14:36, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Leaving

I don't know that I'm leaving. I'm just taking a break to clear my head. This post is proof that I'm not even entirely 100% on WikiVacation. There's just so much fighting and bickering going on that I'm not sure it's worth my energy.

I just want more WikiLove. BTW - thanks for the kind words the other day. Kevin Rector (talk) 00:31, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Before You Go On Vacation, Please Comment on SPUI

Whereas this User is in the Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Sollog should one be particularly careful and do you think that the SP part is a "stand-in" for Sock Puppet? This is a sincere question from a relative newbie trying to feel his way around. Thank you, hydnjo talk 02:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Simplified Ruleset

Hi Kim--just wanted to say I like your Simplified Ruleset page a lot. Sometimes I think we are drowning in rules and policy: this is very sensible, and above all, inviting. Happy editing! Antandrus 01:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nomic

Having looked at your user page you may like this quote ;-) greetings, --Elian 04:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The big secret of course is that Wikipedia is not really about an encyclopedia,
it's just a big game of nomic. ;-) --JimboWales

Thanks!

Thank you for supporting my nomination for administrator. —wwoods 05:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pero Que?

Maybe I'm trying to think a little too much about this one...what was your exact point on your last message to me? (And yes, I suppose I agree with those two statements.) Salva31 09:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your kindness. I haven't seen a lot of that on wiki in the few weeks that I have been here. Your example of what you call "microevolution" is one that I have heard before, and is not offensive even in the least. What offends me, Kim, is the next step which the evolutionists often claim as fact and use it to eventually say (in a more or less complicated way) "boys and girls, we formed from rocks over a gradual process of billions of years. This is more than theory, you see, and because both of my collegues here, Joe Stalin and Paul Pot, who are scientists, believe that it has replaced creation as an explanation for the origin of life, you should think that too." Do you understand now what my concern is? (don't let the names offend you by the way.) It always amazes me how two people can look at the same thing and come to opposite conclusions about it. In one hand, we have the evolutionist, who looks at our beautiful, inconceivably complex world and says, "well, it must have taken gazillions of years for this all to randomly put itself together." On the other hand, the creationist looks at the world and says, "due to the organizational complexity which we see everywhere we look, the only explanation is that there must be a Creator." The example you formerely cited is one of microevolution. Now, if that is what you want to call it, then that's fine, but all it is is a variation of genetic information. Do you think that humans will ever be able to grow wings? Given, there is randomness in variation, but there are limits. Salva31 10:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is offensive to use examples like Stalin and Pol Pot. And saying "no offense" after saying something offensive doesn't negate the offense. It really isn't helpful - people will focus on that and ignore everything else you say. Guettarda 16:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The road to improving my internet etiquette is a gradual progression=) -- I forgot to mention why I created that illusion. Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, and now even American high school kids as well were motivated, (if not then at least given fuel) to exterminate vast numbers of their own people thanks to evolutionary philosophy. If you think I'm wrong, go read Mein Kampf, or ask one of the kids at Columbine high school what Dylan's shirt said on the front of it or what belief was prevalent in his family when he carried out his slaughter in 1999. I'm sure you can understand how much patience I am exhibiting here. It is only the beliefs which drive people to do evil things that I am targeting -- not the people themselves. Salva31 11:43, Apr 14 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for supporting my nomination on RfA, it failed because of Wikipedia's minority rule system, although I thought 21/8 support was sufficient. It was also cut short by 12 hours. But your vote of confidence is greatly appreciated, now let's build an encyclopedia! --Bjarki 14:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your theory of evolution changes

"... Currently, the modern synthesis is the most powerful theory explaining variation and speciation, and for use in the science of biology, it has replaced other explanations for the ..."

The problem i have there with your change is that it's not just biology, but many other scientific fields such as psychology and medicine. It was better the other way. Paulr 16:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the typo

<<..On your user page, you state that "evolutionists are people who believe evolution is a fact.">>

I certainly didn't intend to say that. Yes, you are right. I fixed it.

<<..I'd think that either you believe in foo, or you know foo to be a fact.>>

Maybe. But for myself, I would say that "facts" are the pieces of evidence--not the conclusions to which the "facts" point. Since we must proceed by induction, we must carefully distinguish 1) "facts" from our 2) conclusions about those facts. Would you agree?

<<..would you like me to nominate you?>>

I would be greatly honored and delighted.  :)) But we might wait for three months, please, until I would have a reasonable schedule so that I could respond to everybody's questions. I am in the middle of some writing and in the middle of the code of some gorgeous computer modeling and cannot attend appropriately to everyone's questions at the moment. Thanks again, but let's do it later. ---Rednblu | Talk 18:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I notice that the Wikipedia system's time zone correction gives me a different time stamp for that deletion log record in different time zones--or something like that. So the time stamp I gave you for that deletion record is probably wrong for your time zone. Anyway here is a working link for that other half of that discussion we were examining. That link should work--until such time as they reorganize the Wikipedia:Deletion log again.  ;) None of this matters, of course, as long as no one else brings it up again.  :)) Are we in trouble again yet? ---Rednblu | Talk 00:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rules

Can you elaborate your suggestion? I want to improve it for sure. I'm however dealing fragile "Genocide" and other "POV" articles so I get rather harsh fire :(. I do not want a heavy language. I want a polite tone that wont irritate people :) --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm...

I'm just curious, since we are going to talk about the meaning of "evolutionist," I thought I would mention that Graft and Slrubenstein seem to be my best examples of the former, judging by their input on the Talk:Evolution page. Salva31 18:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rednblu

I noticed you spoke of nomiating Rednblu for admin. I have spent a lot of time with Rednblu on talk:creation-evolution controversy. He is not the kind of user I would want as an admin. Have you ever seen this user do anything worthwhile on Wikipedia? Bensaccount 00:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kim, you are one brave boy. Braver than this boy. I had just been thinking myself of nominating Rednblu, but feared the pre-ponderance of sentiments such as Bensaccount's. Most definitely, given Red's tendency to argue for the enemy (the believer) in exploring NPOV, it is better that the suggestion came from you, who traditionally would argue opposite him. In any case, I am certain Rednblu would make a courteous and restrained admin. And I very much doubt that anybody along the way will say otherwise. They will say he is incessant in pushing for inclusion of all POVs and that he is "that legendary Usenet troll". But that is low, ad hominem laziness. Regardless of how any Usenet posters may have soured on him in the there and then, this is the here and now, he is a good man, and he is good for Wikipedia, as you and I know. Tom Haws 14:44, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Search engine optimization

Thank you for the revert. I didn't want to do that singlehandedly. Now that you've reverted once, I'll be glad to back you up if it becomes an edit war. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:15, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but I need help

I have been as patient and understanding to all of my debators as personally possible; they have nevertheless fired several blatant personal attacks and attempted to inferiorate my opinions and arguments, which are 100% legitimate. Please see my user discussion page for examples. As of now, my comments have been removed from the discussion page without my consent, which would technically be considered unconstitutional if this were a court of law. Although this is not a court of law, I am assuming wikipedia is not an autocracy, and that I have the right to petition and not have my opinions removed like wikipedia is some sort of second-hand communist-dominated encyclopedia. If my opinions were unscientific, then why were they removed from the discussion page? You must understand how much I am holding onto my patience when I see this happen! My arguments were about editing the article, but after having to chronically repeat myself, the talk page did get quite conjested. Is this not slightly mysterious to you? Do you think that people like that are going to spread their beliefs if other people know that they are acting in such a manner - removing the most powerful of others' opinions but keeping their own? If I have to give my entire life to keeping worms like that from infiltirating my country's education system and brainwashing kids until they bring guns to school wearing shirts that say "natural selection," on Hitler's birthday and shoot up their classmates, then I will! Some of the content in that article is NOT NPOV! It is very capable of being NPOV if about two sentences were removed from it, but for some reason, those two sentences seem to be so important (remarkably they are both targeted towards Christianity and have absolutely 0---NOTHING---0 to do with evolutionary theory) that such a turbulent, outrageous debate must occur instead. PLEASE- I love wikipedia. It is an incredible horizon and a wonderful addition to the Internet. Let's make sure we consider the most important subjects as carefully as possible. Salva 15:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whew! Right, one step at a time. I just get really worked up when I see the Enemy working so strongly in our system of education. Again you are right, as always =). The first segment is below, which can just be replaced by a period. Abiogenesis has not replaced ID in Biology or anywhere else.

• , and for use in the science of biology, it has replaced other explanations for the origin of species, including creationism and Lamarckism.
• The second is the graphic mockery of the Icthyus in the last part of the article. It is offensive, (especially since we just got a new Pope!)

Salva 21:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kim, I answered Salva's comment on my talk page. Sorry I have been slow at assisting him. Tom Haws 20:12, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sound of One Hand Clapping

I've noticed here and elsewhere, the "discussions" seem one-sided because the hosts' tend to respond on the originating user's Talk page. Is this a Wiki custom?

Also, you wrote on my Talk page, "Hi, first up I noticed that some vandalism correction had gone awry, and fixed it." Nothing went awry, and there was no vandalism. I was just doing some housekeeping, eliminating postings I considered obsolete. Since you posted a followup to Mel's post, I did restore his for the sake of continuity.

Finally, thanks, but I know about the time stamp. I'd accidently left it out and had stuck it in immediately. Didn't it show up when you saw my post? — Jack (J M Rice 23:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Hey, wait, it's still there!?Salva 02:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ahhh, never mind that. I owe ya one, Kim ;-). Salva 02:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VFD Question

Dear Kim, Thank you for asking your question again. I did miss it. I proposed a VFD because there has been no action on the proposed merger --- or anything else!. I'm happy for the page to remain as a couple of sentences, although previous experience suggests that it'll be edited constantly until it's (once again) a party political broadcast for the Discovery Institute. Ian Pitchford 13:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Teach the Controversy

Mel Etitis, who I understand is an Admin, has now put his stamp of approval on a highly POV intro to this article, after much discussion had led to a reasonably good consensus intro. His taking the side of a highly POV version by a highly contentious editor who made no attempt to seek constructive discussion on the talk page is inappropriate and inconsistent with Wiki policy. The fact that he is doing this as an Admin tells me that the some actions contrary to consensus are approved by the ultimate powers that be on Wikipedia. I guess power trumps consensus here, as in the real world.

Thanks for your help in trying to keep everyone acting in good faith consistent with Wiki policy. Apparently Mel has the power to push his POV at will and can rally numbers to crush the minority who are trying to cooperate and discuss in good faith, and to ensure that all information is included in Wiki in a neutral manner. He has consistently misstated my position, ridiculed me and made false accusations against me.

His exercise of his Admin power is effectively driving away editors like me from the process. If you can do something, great, let me know. Otherwise, I will likely bow out of the rigged process. At least now I have experienced a little bit of what it must be like to be a dissident in a police state, or living in the book 1984. --VorpalBlade 15:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

--VorpalBlade 14:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. I have done nothing on this page as an admin. Indeed, because I had become involved in editing it, I placed a request for the page to be protected in the usual way rather than protecting it myself. I have continued to behave in that way. The History and archives will show that clearly.
2. On the other hand, I tried for some time to moderate the dispute, trying to curb both (highly polarised) sides in the debate — primarily VorplaBlade and Ungtss on one side and Ian Pitchford on the other. Again, the History and archives will bear that out.
3. It finally became clear that moderation wasn't going to work; the article has attracted too many PoV pushers, who are not prepared to accept genuine compromise. Some of them attept to find the appearance of compromise, some don't even bother to do that. Having looked at the article again, and at the many articles with which it overlaps, I've come to the conclusion that it would be better merged with Discovery Institute, and in any case should be considerably shorter. I've thus argued and voted for that position. I've done little editing on the article, apart from a little tidying of English, links, etc.
4. VorpalBlade, on the other hand, has made whhoelsale reverts of material with which he disagrees; in that, he's like those on the other side of the debate, but unlike them he's reverted unrelated, later edits simply in order to get back to his version. For example, my correction of the 'Merge' template and a number of internal links, together with corrections to the English, were simply swept aside in his eagerness to return the article to his PoV.
5. The business about police states and rallying numbers to crush opposition is not only childish but astinishingly out of keeping with the facts. Not only have I not rallied anybody, but I notice that a number of people not hitherto involved have suddenly appeared, all voting 'keep' in the VfD. If rallying users in order to crush opposition is a bad thing, then I assume that VorpalBlade will be issuing a complaint... or is it only bad when (imagined to be) on the other side?

• I've commented on Kim Bruning's peculiar and very non-neutral behaviour in all of this on the VfD page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with Mel's characterization of my actions, but rather than respond point by point, I think anyone can look at the discussion page and see for themselves. I do revert massive wholesale deletions without discussion, and I believe that is proper. Mel, you should too. Wiki policy does not call for "tidying" up the article after such bad behavior. MPLX deleted 120+ lines of text with no attempt at constructive discussion or consensus seeking, and you think "tidying" is the right response?

I am sorry if I implied that you rally numbers. I think others may, but I have no reason to think you did. I apologize for that.

I still think you were not neutral as to which version of the page you asked to be frozen before. Again, I invite anyone to look at the record.

I think a good Admin should encourage junior editors and try to find common ground. I think my record is pretty good, and at least reasonable. I have complimented others with whom I disagree, including Monk, Ian and Mel; yet, correct me if I have missed one, but I do not think you have said one kind or encouraging thing to me. That is not the mark of a good Admin. --VorpalBlade 14:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talking behind your back

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents.

Sam Spade 10:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2 "conflicts" in which I was involved

• Charles Enderlin -- converging on a common version of the article.
• Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism and Image talk:Davos Switzerland G8 Summit.jpg -- basically User:SlimVirgin and myself, taken in a crossfire, are trying to friendly compare our notes in spite of the noise :p Rama 18:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Just thought I'd say hi, Kim, since I haven't recently. I also wanted to say that I hope the stuff at WP:AN/I won't deter you from keeping up your good work around here. I agree with your positions, I think you were extraordinarily calm and polite, and while I recognize that Mel might have initially been confused by your comment about voting (let's face it, Wikipedia is often bad about living up to the consensus commitment), I have no idea why he continued to react to you in the way he did. Seems very odd to me--I don't know Mel well at all, but I'd never noticed him reacting in this way. Anyhow, my presence here is very on-again off-again right now (stressed with other things, and realizing I need to be able to back off my commitment here from time to time if I'm going to contribute over the long haul), but I noticed the discussion and thought you might appreciate an encouraging word. All my best, Jwrosenzweig 05:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adminship nomination

Kim, thanks for nominating Rama. He's a lovely person and an excellent editor. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:40, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

(Xiong and Netoholic) vs Snowspinner et al -- RfArb

Netoholic is listed as an involved party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Xiong, Xiong vs Netoholic. You are noticed as Netoholic's mentor.

Please note that this is not a hostile request for further findings against Netoholic. I am content with ArbCom's current findings and am happy that he and I go peacefully and do not tread on each other's toes. — Xiong熊talk* 01:54, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

Please note that the scope of this RfArb has increased to include Snowspinner. I should provide a link to the new request section title, vis: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#(Xiong and Netoholic) vs Snowspinner et al.

You wrote: Xiong should be instructed to talk with the mentors. Should he not be satisfied by our attempts to address his concerns... -- I no longer feel I have a bone to pick with Netoholic, so I'm not quite sure how you fit in. Please read carefully the paragraph above. Netoholic is an involved party, not a guilty party, not an indicted co-conspirator, not a party due for another round of bashing. I'm actually pretty confident of 3 mentors of such stature, seniority, and sheer grit being able to keep Netoholic on a short leash. I don't anticipate any future problems with him, and I'm certainly not going to take whacks at him when he's down -- wouldn't be sporting, wouldn't be constructive, and isn't necessary. When I fought back, I did so in self-defense, and that time is over -- at least, vis-a-vis your mentee.

It would seem to exceed your portfolio as Netoholic's mentor, but if you feel you are able to exert some pressure on his friends, former allies, outraged bystanders, and common meddlers to let the matter drop, then I will certainly welcome it. I think that's preferable to stirring the pot until enough incendary scum comes to the top to burst into a new feud. — Xiong熊talk* 11:22, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

I like your attitude. There's some issues we gotta talk through sometime, but I like your attitude :-) Kim Bruning

Thanks for the vote of confidence. What do you think ought to be done? — Xiong熊talk* 12:19, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

For now, I suggest we let the current storm blow over. Just do some noncontroversial editing for a while, be noncommittal on policy, and that should just about do the trick, it's what I sometimes do too. :)

If you feel that that's not going to work, or if you get into substantive trouble later anyway, feel free to drop me a line, discretely per e-mail is good too!

Kim Bruning 10:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic's page move from Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits back to User talk:Xiong/TC

Personal opinion: I think that this page move crossed the line. User:Xiong's article deserves to be in the Wikipedia namespace as a Wikipedia thinktank article just as much as his Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful. It is long-winded, and it does cover things that probably don't belong in the article. On the other hand, for those who are visually oriented it gives a good idea of how transclusion works, and it does a better job of covering the problems of using templates instead of just focusing on the problems of meta-templates. BlankVerse ∅ 01:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I was ignored by Netoholic (nothing new—look at my evidence!), and you were reverted (after you asked NOT to be reverted). I've reported it as an injunction violation, but it looks like the arbitrators just want to get the case finished. Still, the case hasn't been recorded as a final decision (although the necessary votes are there for closure), so I count this an injunction violation that requires a 24 hr. ban. BlankVerse ∅ 02:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that the only rule that Netoholic will ever always follows is Ignore all rules ;-). The three of you mentors might think about creating one central method of contacting all of you at one time about Netoholic (perhaps User:Netoholic's Mentors?). BlankVerse ∅ 02:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules does not mean what you think it does.... it means essentially don't be worried about what rules exist, if their presence gives you stress. It does not mean disregard rules even though you know they exist. I've done neither in this case. That page, far worse thatn anything I was accused of, is a manifesto of all Xiong's desires for wikipedia. I see value in the informative portions of it, split amongst relevant pages, and would like to see it stay in user space, until it's contents can be redistributed. Please discuss on User talk:Xiong/TC, rather than here. -- Netoholic @ 02:36, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Already addressed

I've already documented my reasoning for why it is untimely for that page to be in Wikipedia: space. Please read User talk:Xiong/TC#Manifesto. -- Netoholic @ 01:18, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a limited answer

Hi, Kim. Thanks for your message. The reasons I refered to involve what I percieve to be an irrational, even unfair, defence on your part for actions on the part of User:Sam Spade which I find objectionable, in more than one instance. I am afraid I cannot provide you with further details since both myself and Sam Spade made a commitment not to discuss this issue until further steps in the dispute resolution are undertaken. Normally, then, I would not even say that much (and this includes my aforementioend comment, too), but since Sam Spade has acted in a manner which I find dishonoured this joint-commitment (namely but far from limited to my recent RFA), I feel comfortable in actually writing this to you. As an aside, I found my singular (and absolutely indirect) interaction with RickK rather unpleasent; how's that for probability? El_C 13:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Netoholic/Mentoring

Please add this page to your Watch list, and feel free to bring any relevant discussion there. -- Netoholic @ 00:19, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

And check the history, as he reverts anything critical of his actions. - Omegatron 01:27, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Possible Net situation

[12]Snowspinner 21:28, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Possible Snowspinner situation

[13] -- Netoholic @ 23:34, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi Kim! Here's my outline, just as you wanted.

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. Well, I would most certainly be willing to help out with ANYTHING. However, seeing I'm an extremely active stub sorter, I would be active with speedy deletions. I also frequent the VFD page a lot, so I would be active there as well. I particularly hate vandals, so I would not be shy about blocking vandals if requested. As I gain more and more pages on my watchlist, I would be happy to make use of the rollback feature on vandalized pages.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. You better believe there is. I am proud of my stub sorting activities, which I like to consider as my way of helping keep down the already massive overhead on the Wiki servers. I am also a member of the Cleanup Taskforce (my desk is here), and I will gladly accept articles and clean them up. However, my crowning contribution to Wikipedia is the Civil Air Patrol article. I am a CAP member myself, and I redid the entire article (with copyedit help from bish). My contributions to that article effectively turned that article into a Featured Article. I certainly think that's something that I'm proud of :-D

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?

A. One, unfortunetely. However, I think I dealt with it in a mature manner. I believe I was completely justified in my position, as the edit conflict that occurred was offensive in my eyes. I came to rest on the editor's comment that it was a joke in poor taste, and I could agree with that. The issue consequently was resolved. I asked for help on IRC and a third party effectively initated a solution that satisfied all parties. As far as other users go, I try to get along with anyone and I don't set out to tick anyone off.

Edit count at time of post: 1441. Kate's tool will give you an updated count.

Anything else? I think I more or less covered everything :-) Linuxbeak 23:26, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress&diff=prev&oldid=12736702

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress&diff=prev&oldid=12737843

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jmabel&diff=prev&oldid=12735955

That's where I had a disagreement. Linuxbeak 20:11, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Gniffel

Gniffel :) 62.194.141.112 21:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

langijes

I am a native speaker of English and Urdu. My Hausa is rusty, but comes back to me in flashes. (Been out of Hausaland for a while.) Smattering of German.

I saw the language labels, but haven't had the bandwidth to go and figure out how and what to put on my page. Are there really short instructions somewhere? Can you tell me what to do?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:28, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

No chat?

Missed you on chat today. I'll assume good faith and hope to catch you tomorrow. Meanwhile, a free gift of another 24hrs. — Xiong熊talk* 04:41, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Netoholic

You are the "mentor" who has most recently been active on User:Netoholic's talk page, so you get this.

Netoholic has been editing various policy pages in an effort to better define what is and is not policy, and for various other reasons. In general, these edits are being reverted by a wide variety of other editors. e.g. [14][15][16][17]

Now, I don't necessarily disagree with everything Netoholic is doing. Some of his edits are useful.

However, I don't believe he should be doing it given the arbcom decision and mentorship. Frankly, I believe that he should leave the policy areas alone for a time, or at least discuss and get consensus first before changing things. What I am seeing is a lot of bold editing, a fair number of reverts, and one and two sentence explanations on the talk pages at most. Not a lot of consensus building. I think he should focus elsewhere, such as on the articles perhaps.

I'm on a very slow connection for the next couple days but in time I'll go through his policy edits with greater care as I believe they do need more careful review than they have received.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I've already discussed about the semi-policy page. In reality, my tagging is being well-accepted, so it is an exaggeration to say "in general, these edits are being reverted". The opposite is true. Of course, some editors are confused about some of the distinctions, but those are being worked out. -- Netoholic @ 03:17, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Babel tags

Put user language templates on my user page (at the top). Please take a look. I had to create two new templates in the process :D—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 04:17, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Umm..."would be useful"? I am sorry if I wasn't very clear. See my user page: iFaqeer (talk · contribs); I already created the tags...

Oh, and see:

http://urdu-ke-naam.blogspot.com/2005/05/urdu-speaking-wikipedia-users.html

and

http://urdu-ke-naam.blogspot.com/2005/05/on-being-saahib-e-zubaan.html

We are actually breaking some very interesting ground here on the Internet as the Urdu language starts to mature in its use on this medium!

Thanks for pulling me into this discussion/process.

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 07:29, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Hey, Hey

Hello again Kim! I was wondering if you could possibly take the time to really do me a huge favor and check out the Talk:Creationism page. What is your opinion on what's going on there? Also, since I am still new at Wiki - what is the best thing to do when your user page is vandalized? It seems some lunatic (Carrionluggage) is getting off by destroying my lovely work. I have no idea who he/she is - any advice from ye who calms the storms of conflict would be stupendous! Thanks, =) Salva 02:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Teletraffic Engineering

Hi there! The discussion on 'using WP for student projects' seems to have run its course, so I have closed it and drawn conclusions. Could you please look over them and indicate on the talk page whether you agree? Thanks. Radiant_* 09:45, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Not precisely. The point of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus, of which the above is a sub, is to establish consensus on some matter and then allow for action thereon. Please read Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus for details. As a side point, imho a poll is pointless unless it has an ending date. Radiant_* 10:57, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Breaking Be Bold

Kim I caught someone on 3BBB I believe. Someone who explicitly has been Breaking Be Bold three times. See http://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Overleg_gebruiker:Dedalus#ROFLMAO. Maybe I'm totally wrong in my approach to consensus editing. Some others are BBB as well, some are on 2BBB, but none of them 3BBB except the one I mentioned. I'm wondering if the concrete overshoes clause does apply in this case. Gebruiker:Dedalus 13:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello

So, it's all your fault is it? Everyone being so nice to each other. It's just sickening. :p --Silversmith 19:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Addicted? Me?

I can stop anytime I want. Muhahahaha!!!! Ta bu shi da yu 01:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Tsushima Islands

Thanks for the page protection — it needed it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mr Bruning, may I ask for an unprotection from you for the Tsushima Islands? Nine days have passed and there is no more debates going on. It's getting ridiculous at this rate if it remains protected for too long. Thanks.

Tan 20:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikimeet

I'd actually love to come, but I really shouldn't. Regretfully, I have other duties to attend to. Tell Jimbo I said hi, though. (Just kidding, he wouldn't know me. :-)

Oh, and consider archiving your talk page again. It's getting awfully big, and the old stuff is really old. :-) JRM · Talk 17:48, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett

Hi Kim, if you get a minute please take a look at Birmingham talk page, an annonymous user has been editing but more to the point deleting brum articles and then he even deleted the evidence on the talk page, I am sure it is Pigs on the wing but cannot be 100% sure? Thanks Nick Boulevard 17:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Reference desk query

There is a reference desk query about using an untagged image on an external site - Wikipedia:Reference desk#Usage of Thomas Munzer jpeg picture. I have found the image (Image:Munzer.jpg) on a Dutch language site [18]. I spotted your name in the native Dutch speakers category, and was wondering if you could ascertain what the liscence on the image on that site is and update the image tag and correct my answer at the reference desk if needed. Thanks, Thryduulf 23:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll take another look at that language - I'm normally fairly good at working out what langauge is what! Anyway, thanmk you for your help. Thryduulf 06:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Some light in the darkness

Please see: this. I've only just finished it, and I need help adding some people to get the ball rolling. Your most competent and good-spirited help would be appreciated. Cheers, --Silversmith Hewwo 13:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Bold

Hi there! Regarding your comment on being bold and potential cardiac arrest, I thought I'd give a few examples of what I'd consider bold. What I usually mean is either start something that some people are already talking about but not doing(such as this); or taking a bunch of stub articles and combining them into a list (Category:SI_derived_units_of_length is next on my list). But I'd be happy to discuss my actions if people disagree. HTH! En groetjes uit Rotterdam :) Radiant_* 15:09, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

• well, how about this?
• Template:Guideline now reads, "Feel free to update the page as needed". I initially thought that was a bad idea (because new users might misunderstand, and existing users would already do that), but I'm now convinced that it should stand as such so that guidelines can stay updated.
• Regarding perpetual polls... I thought I was doing the exact opposite. If a poll is limited, then when it's finished we can draw a conclusion and make it actionable. If a poll is perpetual, people will keep debating the issue forever and not actually do anything. Thus I felt that by putting in a time limit, I was encouraging boldness (though in retrospect I admit that calling the vote on WP:POINT was a bad idea)
• Doei, Radiant_* 09:36, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your very inspiring support message ! Radiant_* 11:26, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

hey

Hey, it was fun chatting with you yesterday. This is just to say hi on wikipedia as well. Martijn Faassen 17:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mediation (2005)

What do you see the future for this as being? Replacing the exisisting mediation pages? I like the requests page. Dan100 11:16, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

PS any chance you could archive your talk page?! It's a PITA to load :-)

Hello from aaq84

Okay, I really don't know how to leave a message, but whatever :P -User:aaq84 6:10 PST, 7th June, 2005 AD :P

Thanks for your support

Thank you for voting on my RFA. Have some pie! I was pleasantly surprised by the sheer number of supporters (including several people that usually disagree with my opinion). I shall do my best with the proverbial mop. Yours, Radiant_>|< 08:11, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks :)

Alright, thanks alot for letting me know of this editing and all, I'm actually thinking of writing a couple of articles about any stuff on Wikipedia, you know :) You tell me, how are things going. Whats up? :) -User:aaq84 6:30 PST, 9th June, 2005 AD.

Refactoring

I have apologized and the lack of comment was because of speed rather than the dishonesty of which I am accused. However, the subsequent vendetta has been too much for me to continue. Trödel|talk 02:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest on J. Reuben Clark. Although Trödel and I are at an impass on this issue, we have mutually agreed to delete our dispute from the talk page. This is particularly appropriate as Trödel discovered the original wordage is a copyright violation, reducing the relevance of the original anon's comments. As your comments are on record, please look them over and decide if you would like them retained on the page. I won't disturb them, obviously. Thanks. Comments welcome. WBardwin 00:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SEO links

Could you weigh in again at Talk:Search_engine_optimization#Linkspam.3F? At least a moderately good case has been made for inclusion of two of these links. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:34, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Scheiden van artikelen

Ik kom er net achter dat in mei ook eindelijk op en:wikipedia men Indochina en French Indochina gescheiden heeft :). Anderen waar ik op en: tegen aanhik zijn Cuba en Zanzibar. In beide gevallen zijn daar meerdere begrippen op 1 hoop geveegd. Dit is in meer plaatsen gebeurd waar district/provincie dezelfde naam hebben als een plaats. Ook alle 76 Thaise provinciehoofdsteden die dezelfde naam hebben als het district waarin ze liggen en dus op 1 hoop gegooid worden. Ik ga daar binnenkort zelf wel weer eens over praten, over die Thaise. Waerth 16:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kwam ik er net achter dat iemand op nl wikipedia alle onzin van het engelse Zanzibar naar de Nederlandse had gezet weer. Kijk naar de eerste zin van het Zanzibar artikel op de engelse! Waerth 16:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hoi! Meer Nederlanders :) Radiant_>|< 14:51, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Het stikt ervan. JRM · Talk 07:20, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey Kim! I know this is a bit late, but I wanted to thank you for supporting me on my RFA. Thanks to everyone who supported me, I am now an admin, and I have been using my powers to help furthur Wikipedia. Again, thank you! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:45, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

The 'but's' of voting

As I wrote, I don't want to formalize all voting on Wiki, nor spread it. It all started with the terrible quagmire of Gdansk/Vote (you may want to read up on it if you haven't), which designed to solve the issue and lay it to rest instead begun to develop new problems, eventually spreading into places like Admin's 3RR Noticeboard when some users (among them respected admins and contributors I know) have begun reporting one another, each claiming IMMUNITY from 3RR based on the vote. While it does prove your points (votes can be bad), the entire Gdansk/Vote proves that sometimes when consensus is impossible (a regratable, but possible occurence) a vote must be taken, and in that case, it should be as fool-proof as possible. My rules are desinged to be applied in that case, and are not meant to encourage voting over consensus making or anything like that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

About the 3RR exception - with disclaimer that this I respect all the users involved and the links below are to the past incidents from the archive - you may want to check: this, this, this and and this. Note that only the last one resulted in blocking, however, all of them did result in time wasted by many users. Now, with Chris support of my proposed changes, I hope this will not be repeated - but those are the prime examples why something needs to be done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eequor (2nd)

Hi, Kim. :) I certainly had not meant to sound apologetic, but I knew it would be a contentious re-nomination. I'm beginning to think that my introduction was all wrong. People seem to think that I was trying to subvert or prevent debate, which was not my intention at all. I'm glad to see you supported. :) func(talk) 21:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's an example of a disturbing edit: [19] Note the second paragraph in particular, and the edit comment as well; Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of evangelizing. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The assumption that the gospel accounts are completely accurate representations of the words of Jesus is one that must at least be qualified. "Unless Jesus was in error, a Christian cannot accept the Western Wall to be a surviving wall etc." is obviously POV about Christians, and without directly citing that POV, original research as well. I realize that Eequor is not Christian, and in fact dislikes Christianity, but the edit did not appear to be motivated by a love of Christianity in any event, but rather by a desire to debunk some of its beliefs. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Before I Vote on 'Move Tsushima Islands' Issue

• I would appreciate a rational explaination (after you read my Comments in the subject dispute Talk:Tsushima Islands), of the arguement or arguments you consider vital and germane to the discusion and vote. Frankly, MOST all of you are being silly over nothing of particular importance, since both names can be redirected into the one used. I have left a comment concerning my contribution to the article, which contribution — seems to have triggered the current edit and revision wars. For that I apologize, but see the Comments on the vote. I am also taking the liberty of putting the vote section AFTER the Comments about same.
• Still, I have just spent over four hours of valuable spare time, and would welcome your thoughts after you read and understand the distinction I put forth between a governments termonology as a governing body and a geographical reference like an archepelego, which it certainly is.
• More to the point, I'd like to see your defense regarding your favorite POV of what I had to say viz a viz the mergest attitude of the senior editors and administrators that frequent the Wikipedia:VfD discussions. To my recollection, I don't recollect any of you hotheads in this dispute ever spending anytime thereon, possibly excepting Mel Etitis, but rarely even then.
• In any event, I'm neutral here, and have asked that the article be kept EDIT FREE for the next three days by placing The Inuse template into it — I'd copyedited over two and half hours before I suspended that effort the other night because this shameful fued was going on — proper English grammer does depend, unfortunately, on whether one uses the plural or the singular. I saved that on my hard drive, but I don't need to wade through yet another 70 edits to finish the job. As it is, this matter will probably double the time it takes for such a simple job.
• If you are local to Japan, some history of the canals or Sea-channel is certainly germane to the ongoing discussion, moreover, any cogent arguement you condsider being particularly telling needs to be clearly repeated in the current on going comments if you want them counted on in the vote.
• I will make sure this message goes to each contributor to the article the past month, so you are not being singled out. Now is the time to take a deep breath, for rational concise summaries, not all the arguing that is so wearisome in 66 printed pages - half a novelette, I'd guess! It's certainly a lot to ask your fellow editors to wade through on a minor issue.
• I will also personally be making sure that at least a dozen other Administrators I'm acquainted with take a look at the debate after the time below. I will in fact ask for twenty commitments, so be clear and respectful of our time!!!
• Thankyou for your time, attention, and good professional behaviour. I'll check the Talk state again no sooner than Monday around Noon (UTC), And ask the uninvolved others to do the same. PLEASE BE CONCISE. [[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]] 00:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi! You appear to be an interested disinterested bystander... I'm just making the rounds to everyone that has made their mark in the last month trying to mediate this flaming revert war — I can use your help — Bring lots O water! (Better yet Beer) Frank

[[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]] 00:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Geneviève

Kim, Geneviève (talk · contribs) first edit appears to have been back in December, and not on Eequor's RfA. I'm wondering if I misunderstood. func(talk) 15:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quick reminder

Archive your damn talk page!

I've applied for medcom (which maybe didnt come as a surprise) here: Wikipedia:Mediation Committee.

Talk to you on irc soonish!

your pal, Inter\^Echo 09:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well I got a big fat non response, so I guess the MedCom didn't want anything to do with me. I'll hopefully take a look at MC stuff from now on. Inter\^Echo 21:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Hey, did you get my e-mail? I got some news! --Silversmith Hewwo 18:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neto?

Out of curiosity - is Neto's mentoring lifted? I've seen no activity on the mentoring page, and quite some WikiSpace activity by him. I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, but people were recently discussing whether mentoring actually works, so I was wondering if this was resolved, abandoned or still active. I've asked the same of the other mentors in the past couple days but received no answer. Yours, Radiant_>|< 11:47, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• I thought not, but took a quick glance at his edit history... the mentors may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Spoiler warning before it gets ugly. See also [20]. Yours, Radiant_>|< 12:26, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, scratch that. It has already gotten ugly, and Neto's badgering and persistent reverting there is bordering on vandalism. FYI. Radiant_>|< 20:15, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid I don't have an IRC client installed. I'll see if I can find one, but that'd take awhile. Radiant_>|< 20:33, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, that was easier than I thought. I'm there. Radiant_>|< 20:38, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Following his 24-hour block, Netoholic removed {{spoiler-other}} from each of the articles into which it had been placed, and reverted Wikipedia:Spoiler warning back to his consensus-defying version. —Lifeisunfair 13:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My block doesn't change the fact that Spoiler-other was used in only two articles (Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Spoiler-other) and is redundant with well-worded spoiler-about. On the talk page, I've described this (Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning#which templates are really needed?) and demonstrated it (Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning#Actual usage). -- Netoholic @ 13:42, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

You removed the template from three articles, but that count is irrelevant. (The template is new and {{tfd}}-tagged.) Your belief that the template is redundant doesn't override the clear consensus. —Lifeisunfair 13:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Be very afraid of people that speak in absolutes like saying "clear consensus". Read the page. There is doubt whether spoiler-other is necessary - doubt raised by others. Why don't you try settling down? -- Netoholic @ 14:01, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Twelve keep votes to four delete votes (including your original proposal) qualifies as a clear consensus. And of course, the talk page vote (before it was halted, due to the supposed dispute resolution) was four to zero in favor of listing both templates. —Lifeisunfair 14:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

eerste nl.wikimedia.org ontmoeting

ik zou iedereen graag willen uitnodigen te overwegen of zij een rol willen en/of kunnen spelen in de oprichting van een nederlandse wikimedia-organisatie. een eerste ontmoeting wordt momenteel georganiseerd, zie daarvoor hier, op de nl.wikimedia.org wiki. er zijn nog vele stappen te nemen, en meer wikianen nodig, om e.e.a. op verantwoorde wijze verder te ontwikkelen. Radiant_>|< 10:50, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi there! A couple days ago we were discussing Five Alternate Pillars for Wikipedia... What I've come up with are :IAR, :BEANS, :WORLD and :DICK, but that's only four. Would you have a suggestion for a fifth? I'd like to make it a nice and colorful template. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 08:09 (UTC)

Withdrawal of renomination

I was actually quite open to people criticising how I operate as an admin, quite unprepared however for people objecting because they disagreed with the process. I realised that I could lose admin status over one action, rather than over all actions as I had hoped. I'm having difficulty staying logged in at all now so I'm off for my holiday and will speak more when I get back in two weeks' time. -- 217.44.238.33 21:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic has ignored the TfD decision.

He removed Template:Spoiler-other from every article and redirected it to Template:Spoiler-about (explaining that it was "not in use" and "redundant"). He then reverted Wikipedia:Spoiler warning yet again. —Lifeisunfair 28 June 2005 18:33 (UTC)

I migrated less than a dozen pages away from spoiler-other so that they were in-line with the work being done my other contributors (especially on Buffy episodes). Take a look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Spoiler-about, and you'll see how much more useful that template is. -- Netoholic @ June 28, 2005 18:57 (UTC)

That isn't for you to decide. You nominated the template for deletion, and the clear consensus was to keep it. You are deliberately overriding this decision. —Lifeisunfair 28 June 2005 19:30 (UTC)

Neto - this is getting out of hand

Since Neto is accusing me of stalking anyway, I took the liberty of looking over his contribs log. What I saw was not good. About 80% of his edits of the past couple days are part of several edit and revert wars; one to deprecate a spoiler template, one other about layout of a series of templates, and a third about an external link at Magic: The Gathering, for which he broke the 3RR today. Apart from that, his behavior towards others is incivil at best, he's made several WP:POINTs recently, has directly contravened TFD consensus and has been biting a newbie. All in all, if he hadn't been under mentorship, I would have blocked him for these disruptions for at least a day. Please look into this. Yours, Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 21:15 (UTC)