User talk:Rspeer/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Talk page archives[edit]

Part I (July 2004 – July 2005)
In which I get a really heart-warming reply from a newbie I helped, manage to not mess up too many things in my first year editing Wikipedia, and end up in a content dispute
Part II (August – November 2005)
In which I resolve a content dispute, appear in the Wiktionary definition of "loser-fucker", and incidentally realize how deeply AfD sucks
Part III (November 2005 – February 2006)
In which a conflict is narrowly averted, much confusion arises from the letters "XD", and I get an article featured, but Henry Ford wrecks the party
Part IV (February -- August 2006)
In which I am given the ceremonial mop, and nothing interesting ensues except for the personal threats


Part V (December 2006 -- February 2007)
One day we will all look back at this and laugh.
Part VI (March -- July 2007)
In which being an admin is no big deal, and I finally earn a barnstar
Part VII (August 2007 -- May 2008)
Bitey the Bear says: Only you can prevent unnecessary username blocks.

Current talk page

Part IV

(February -- August 2006)

In which I am handed the ceremonial mop,
and nothing interesting ensues except for the personal threats

Your RFA[edit]

I thought I would let you know that feydey added a question to your RFA. Moe ε 04:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Beatnik programming language[edit]

Hi, "beatnik programming language" -wikipedia -encyclopedia only gives me 49 unique hits. "beatnik" "programming language" -wikipedia -encyclopedia will include many results refereing to the Beatnik audio plugin. Could you give me some evidence that this is notable like Brainfuck/Befunge? Cheers, —Ruud 19:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There's 346 results for beatnik "esoteric programming" -wikipedia -encyclopedia -directory. Many of those hits are about lesser-known programming languages that cite Beatnik as an inspiration, so that at least puts it above the Befunge clone of the week in notability.
I de-prodded because I had heard of it from outside Wikipedia (in a practice puzzle for the MIT Mystery Hunt). However, I'd be okay with it going to AfD for further discussion. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, your comments are requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beatnik programming language and maybe you want to consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science. Cheers, —Ruud 21:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm nomination several other articles on esoteric languages for deletion. You may want to review those. A full list is available at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science#Esoteric languages. Cheers, —Ruud 00:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for coordinating this; I agree that many of those need to be deleted. I'll go and comment. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Voting system criteria[edit]

Why didn't you nominate the mentioned voting system criteria en bloc? Now, if I put up Mike Ossipoff's criteria up for deletion, I may end up being accused of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point and/or we end up with a inconsistent collection of articles about voting system criteria based on whoever decided to show up on a vote for deletion, all because of the lack of well-established criteria (pardon the pun) for listing criteria. My only concern was NPOV, but now I have Markus Schulze unfairly attacking me for trying to balance what I saw as a pro-winning votes bias here (as evidenced by what is all said at Talk:Condorcet_method). -- Dissident (Talk) 17:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you'd be accused of that, as long as you nominated them on their own (lack of) merit, not because they're worse than the sincere expectation criterion. I haven't nominated them because:

  • Making joint nominations is complicated. Making re-nominations is complicated. I don't think I even know how to make a joint re-nomination, since I don't participate much in AfD, preferring to work on other areas of Wikipedia.
  • I am working on a lot of things on Wikipedia currently.
  • I am already involved in a large number of AfDs right now, and it's rapidly exceeding my tolerance for overly complicated processes
  • Since it was your idea to propose the other pages for deletion, I didn't understand why you wouldn't just go do it.

Additionally, an "inconsistent collection of articles" describes the fringes of absolutely every area of Wikipedia. I believe the other articles should be deleted, and I may propose them when I have time. But this is very non-urgent. Who cares if there are more insignificant articles about winning votes than there are about margins for a few days? In the grand scheme of things, who cares about winning votes vs. margins at all?

I encourage you to go make the nomination, though, and I will defend you if anyone accuses you of WP:POINT for it.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it's up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Favorite betrayal criterion. -- Dissident (Talk) 06:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Computer science[edit]

Hi, and welcome aboard WikiProject Computer science! Glad to have you onboard. --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Your RFA (cont.)[edit]

I'm sorry to tell you this but I thought I would let you know I saw Starblinds suspicions about your possible sock/meat puppetry and requested a checkuser to see if his allegations were correct or not. I personally hope he was wrong. Moe ε 21:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You are extremely confused. A Request for CheckUser checks what IP edits are coming from, not what computer or who is at the keyboard. Of course we edit from the same IP a lot of the time because we live in the same apartment. Now I have to go point this out at the RFCU too. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't get too wound up about it. It looks like you're likely to pass, and spending too much time arguing with your opponents may just give a bad impression. I think most people would be perfectly happy with your explanation, otherwise we might have to desysop Angela. --Michael Snow 05:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and the very reassuring example. I could tell that I was giving my opposers on this issue more time than it was worth, but I was afraid of how it would look if I let the accusation stand. If Starblind presses the issue more I won't justify it with a response, and Moe has apparently left Wikipedia, so I think the issue should be over now. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Taking the axe to the election-methods mailing list[edit]

Just a heads up I have nominated majority choice approval once again for deletion. I think the Wikipedia culture is ripe for purging out articles original to the election-methods list that have not gained further notability beyond a few websites. Perhaps it's a good idea to create an article on the election-methods mailing list itself because of how much influence it had on voting theory research. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think the e-m mailing list is particularly notable, actually. Forums that are mainly used by a few dozen people tend not to be. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Since I've come to the conclusion that responding to Markus's accusations seems to have become a futile endeavor, I will refrain from doing so. However, please don't take my silence as an admission of the more egregious ones he has put up. The important thing is that sincere expectation criterion is going away and I have no longer any problem with it, because now clear notability standards are in place for topics on voting systems. -- Dissident (Talk) 16:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure the notability standards are that clear, but I'll agree the situation is improving. And thank you for doing your part to de-escalate the conflict between you and Markus. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 02:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks! And I've been doing some reading while I waited. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. Even though I voted oppose, I have no doubt you will be a competent administrator. The only reason I voted to oppose was that your edits that I looked at didn't support your "editcountitis" statement, and that discrepency was a concern. It really should have been a weak oppose anyway, and I appreciate that you left a comment on my talk page despite my oppose vote. I did consider changing my vote to neutral, and had it looked like it would have made a difference in the nomination, probably would have. – Doug Bell talkcontrib 06:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Best wish for your adminship.--Jusjih 06:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! You deserve this and best of luck in your new role. --Siva1979Talk to me 07:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations Quarl (talk) 2006-03-03 09:27Z

Congrats! —Ruud 10:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!! Mushroom (Talk) 11:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations from me as well - I am so very glad that the early spurious puppet objections did not gain traction. Don't hesitate to ask me any questions you have regarding the new buttons. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrats, man! Glad to hear you and cmouse are still doing well. Mangojuice 02:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Your RFA (cont.)[edit]

Hello Rspeer. I am sorry, to you and Cmouse, for not believing you. I feel a little paranoid about users now because my problems with Mcfly85 and his sockpuppets. I'm not really sure who to trust. I never thought you created another account for abuse, I was just trying to confirm a accusation made by another user, not start a fight between us. Feel free to tell Cmouse I'm sorry for her. And congrats. Moe ε 21:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, I think you should leave a message for Cmouse instead of asking me to relay it. Doesn't it sound a bit insincere if you want to apologize to her for thinking we might be the same person, and you do so by sending a message through me? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I thought it would save time since you DO live with her. :-D Moe ε 22:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Llull voting system[edit]

I've nominated this article for deletion again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Llull voting system (second_nomination). I'd appreciate your vote. -- Dissident (Talk) 02:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the perhaps harsh tone of voice in the deletion nomination, but I am getting the distinct feeling one should be assertive here lest he finds himself being walked all over. Incidentally, do you fancy voting on the deletion of majority choice approval as well? It seems that in the deletion discussion, original research seems no longer to be an issue. -- Dissident (Talk) 03:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Your signature[edit] really cool. Great idea! —Nightstallion (?) 10:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA[edit]

Admin mop.PNG Thanks for voting in my RFA. Although you chose not to support my request, the final vote count was (66/2/3), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. I appreciate your comments and will try to take them on board. Stifle 17:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Borda Fixed Point[edit]

(Your user page seems different than the ones I've seen... not sure where to put this so feel free to move it.)

Well, It does seem like the Borda Fixed Point issue has escalated. I suppose one of my main complaints with Wikipedia in general is the barriers to entry for people who really have something valuable to say. Specifically, there are a whole hell of a lot of rules that you have to follow. Obviously, Colignatus has not spent time reading the rules so he was particularly taken aback by your proposal for deletion on the BFC page. I think the fact that someone else created the page is grounds enough to keep the page. However, it would be nice to find a way to explain to Colignatus that he should allow someone else to develop material on BFC and then he should feel free to error-check, etc. as his perspective is valuable (being the creator of the method). Finally, you are one of the more aggressive Wikipedians that I've met, so there's probably some improvement that could be made in your "beside manner" as well. That is, while marking an article for deletion gets things done and gets his/her attention, a discussion would be better (and even a revert to make your point). Anyway, I'm quite sick today so I hope any of this makes coherent sense. The point: there are a hell of a lot of rules in Wikipedia and we need to balance following the rules with getting valuable contributions. Ask yourself: how different would the voting system page look if you didn't keep such tight control of it? -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 19:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm backing off from the issue a bit now. I recognize now that I have not been enough of an "eventualist" in this situation; while Colignatus' contributins don't fit the standards of Wikipedia, I should tolerate their existence -- and even a couple of attacks -- for a while as we try to explain those standards to Colignatus, so that he might become a useful contributor on other voting system articles. I'm fairly sure that most of Colignatus' contributions so far will eventually end up removed as original research/personal opinion, though. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
WFM... I think this will be the more wise strategy. But, then again, I'm not an administrator, just a user. -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 19:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't back off too far, now. If I ask myself "how different would the voting system page look if Rspeer didn't keep such tight control of it maintain it so well?", the answer is: it would look like a bloody mess, like every other page that doesn't have one or a handful of dedicated people who understand Wikipedia working on it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

mbube and isicathamiya[edit]

dont just mergew articles because you think ther on about they same thing, because theyr not, you will just cause problems as to what the information on your proposed mergered page is referring to, or have two completely seperate articles on one page, in which case what was the point, youve just moved a page from its logical location to an illogical one, so just leave them or expand them, but dont delete and move them just because you can. mbube and isicathamiya Philc 0780 23:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The main source I've referred to, Nightsong by Veit Erlmann, has Joseph Shabalala saying that mbube is just a poor name for isicathamiya, which is why I thought they should be merged. What's the difference you see between them? Feel free to expand those articles, by the way - I'm clearly not getting around to merging them anytime soon, and if you tell me an important difference between them I'd be happy to not merge them at all. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


I disagree with your handling of User:Colignatus. He has been warned many times about personal attacks on Talk:Borda fixed point, and I already gave him a strongly-worded warning on his talk page, so even if you don't believe the threats are threats, he should still be blocked for personal attacks.

Colignatus has shut down all reasonable discussion on two articles by making personal attacks and academic threats, and he has gotten the idea that he can get away with it. It accomplishes nothing at this point to say "I'm warning you, be nice or I'll warn you again." rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I would encourage you to use the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedure, including Wikipedia:Requests for comment if you still have problems. I will even certify the basis of a dispute if you choose to file an RFC. Stifle 23:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Stifle, I think. An RfC would be a good step; if Colignatus doesn't start getting along better, an RfArb should follow, to put some teeth into it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I tried to give Colignatus the benefit of the doubt. I also endorse an RfC at this point. -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 16:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Colignatus has sent me a draft of an email he intends to send my former dean. I'm not going to respond. I can share with you the draft if you so desire. -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 19:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Man, I do not envy you and this nonsense. You have my respect for keeping a cool head and the higher ground. Scott Ritchie 00:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I endorse a RFC and attempt to resolve the dispute without blocking this user. Looks like a misunderstanding that escalated because someone improperly handled it.--Fahrenheit451 04:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

As Colignatus uses his ability to post to Wikipedia as a means of threatening editors who disagree with him, it would be very damaging to undo the block now. The RfC page points out that he is allowed to e-mail admins or post on his talk page to participate in the RfC. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

O.K. I offer to act as a mediator if mutually acceptable to both you and Colignatus. Incidentally, I started the Borda Fixed Point article. If I had known where it would have lead, I would have given it second thoughts.--Fahrenheit451 06:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The situation is beyond mediation now, it seems. I'd like to simply deal with it as little as possible, and get on with editing Wikipedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's clear since he started to ask for money [1] that there's nothing substantive in this dispute other than his feelings having been hurt by fairly standard Wikipedia policy. I'm going to ignore this dispute unless you request otherwise or an RfA is initiated. I'm still willing to parse out the substantive stuff that I may have missed, but it looks rather thin. -- Joebeone (Talk) 20:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fine. There's not much need to be involved in the dispute anymore. And an RfAr will only be necessary if he gets unblocked for some reason. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess wikipedia is not for Colignatus. Too bad.--Fahrenheit451 03:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Sarah York[edit]

Ah, if that's the case I'll remove the tag — I marked it as unsourced because there were no text sources listed in the article (such sources might be useful). Thanks for giving me the heads-up. æle 00:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I, too, wish that that article could reference another source, but TAL seems to have dragged Sarah York out of complete obscurity with their documentary. (I realize that she is on the very edge of notability.) Every Web source I've seen references the TAL episode. I think that, to find a printed source, you'd have to look at a newspaper microfiche in a Michigan public library. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Save the Game![edit]

Help us track down verifiable sources to bring The Game back! Go to! Bkkbrad 19:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"Save The Game"? That title is going to hurt your cause a lot. It's implying that The Game being deleted from Wikipedia is a threat to its existence -- which was exactly the point being made by those who voted to delete it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Voting Machine vs. Voting System[edit]

Hi. (I apologize for this being so complicated.)

I recently proposed a merge of Voting machine into DRE voting machine because the former was pretty crappy and really only talked about DREs. Shortly after, rewrote the article and removed the merge tag [2]. (That anon also seems to have recently added [3] a portion under the "Vote recording systems" heading on Voting systems.)) The new Voting machine page is rather good, so the merge is now irrelevant. However, as the Talk:Voting machine page highlights, the new Voting machine page describes what a lot of academics [4] [5] [6] [7], election officials [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] and vendors [13] [14] [15] [16] in the e-voting space refer to as "voting systems" (or "election systems"). (That talk page also highlights how a few watchers think I'm acting like I own the page, so I'm trying to be conservative.)

So, I'd like to ask your advice. When I first typed "voting system" into Wikipedia, I was surprised that it wasn't my notion of the word "voting system" (it now seems like a political science notion of "voting system", right?). I guess, in the manner of, I would refer to the current Voting system content as applying to "vote counting systems". Similarly, Voting machine is better termed as "vote recording systems". So, I'm thinking of proposing a change of name for Voting machine and putting a disambig. notice at the top of Voting system that links to both Voting system and Vote recording system. I guess Voting system could be renamed to Vote counting system (which right now looks very similar to Voting machine) but I'm not sure that's a good idea given the featured article status, among other things.

Thoughts? -- Joebeone (Talk) 19:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

"Vote counting systems" sounds like it involves people passing around collected ballots and scrutinizing them for dimpled chads. The other terms I've heard for "voting system" in the mathematical sense are "voting method" and "election method". But then, I used "voting method" in the article to mean the sub-part of the mathematical system that doesn't involve specifying the ballot. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
So, do you think this is an issue? Would you support a disambig. link at the top of Voting system that said, "For other uses..."? best, -- Joebeone (Talk) 19:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a good solution to me. It's a lot easier than changing every reference to "voting systems" on Wikipedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Word. -- Joebeone (Talk) 00:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Face-crying.svg My RfA
Thank you for supporting/opposing/commenting on my request of adminship, sadly the result was 54/20/7 an thus only 73% support votes, resulting in that the nomination failed. As many of you commenting that I have to few main-space edits, I'll try to better my self on that part. If you have any ideas on what kind of articles I could edit, pleas send me a line. :) AzaToth

09:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


Sorry if this may be late, but could you please check out the Isicathamiya discussion page; last month, I added a comment which may be relevent to the 'merging' of the two articles (the other being Mbube). Thanks - LBM 6 April 2006, 18:40 (GMT)

Root Page concept[edit]

Hi, I note that you defended Wikipedia:Root page in the past to some extent. You were against deep levels, and we now agree and have just three levels of Root-Hub-Branch. The idea is now under attack despite months of effort my myself and User:Light current and numerous changes that overcome objections. We think we now have a very neat system in action, using special templates, which you can see in action in several places. Would you please take a look and consider supporting us by voting to keep at the link given on Wikipedia talk:Root page --Lindosland 17:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the anti-editcountitis support[edit]

Hi Rspeer- thanks a lot for your support on my recent, (barely) successful rfa. Please feel free to leave me any comments or criticisms on my talk page! --He:ah? 22:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Isicathamiya/Mbube - removed merge tags[edit]

Hi there - I just wanted to let you know that I've removed the merge tags from both Isicathamiya and Mbube. The styles are quite different from each other; please see my comment on the Isicathamiya talk page for more info -- LBM 11 April 2006, 18:42 (GMT)


Hello, I see you've recently edited {{cent}}. This is quite all right and I encourage you to help keep it current. But please don't forget to log your changes at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Template log. This will help us stay all on the same page -- no pun intended. Thank you. John Reid 18:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I had no idea that page existed. I'd say it should be mentioned in the noinclude-section of the template. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved from afd discussion[edit]

Yet he's managed to be more eloquent about policy than most of us with thousands of edits. Nice job. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Please speak for yourself, dear Rspeer; I certainly won't object if you believe yourself to need a review in policy. I happen to think that other established contributors bring valid points to table. To the extent that the points spoken, I agree. Some of the points contain some important views for some users, and I have endorsed those that I think are important. This does not signal any amount of eloquence amoung anyone us. -ZeroTalk 16:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of policy: WP:NPA. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I take exception to that false and damaging statement. My comment was not uncivil, nor was it intended to be. Please reconsider your allegation of my policy infringement. -ZeroTalk 16:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
It certainly was uncivil. I was pointing out, in a positive, complimentary way, the admirable fact that a user with 33 edits had posted a reasonable interpretation of policy that started from scratch and avoided the squabbling we see in the rest of the discussion. I felt it was a useful contribution, and one that serves as a useful example of the fact that we don't disregard new users because they're new, but because they usually don't contribute anything to the discussion. (Remember how AfD is supposed to be a discussion and not a vote?) You turned that observation into an attack on me. That was totally unnecessary. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. I certainly did not intend such offense. I never commented upon the new user's argument. I simply made a note of his edit count and current contributions that entelled absolutely no subjectiveness concerning his viewpoint and contribution in discussion. Upon my innoncent note, you made a brash assumption, henceforth coming to the negative conclusion that I was demeaning his comment. His comment is excellent. I have no motive in disbaraging his stance. His presense as a new wikipedian is simply a note that's religously posted on such discussions in regards to the closing admistrator.
Compounding upon this, you accused the remainder of the voters with the unjust comment of having lesser thought-out thesis statements for their respective arguments. In response to this, I replied "speak for yourself" and explained how your comment of other's viewpints is not quite acceptable. -ZeroTalk 17:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
See, you didn't need to take my original response as a criticism of you. I simply meant that the user was making his point particularly well for a newbie, better than many established users, including me. It wasn't meant to demean anyone. It seems this is all just a huge miscommunication, so let's just put this behind us, okay? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes. I'd like that. My apologies for this little fiasco; I wasn't attempting to engage in any conflict. -ZeroTalk 04:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on my Talk page[edit]

Your comments are noted. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Clarity of cite.php vertical arrows[edit]

Thanks for responding to my comment on Wikipedia talk:footnotes. Please take 1-2 minutes to visit TA Luft#References so that you can see the differences in appearance between a multiple-use reference arrow and a single-use reference arrow. Why can't the single-use arrow look as good as the multiple-use arrow? I will watch for your reply here.

As for re-writing the how-to-use cite.php method, I will shortly send you an example of what I think is needed. - mbeychok 21:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I responded on that page. Incidentally, with my computer's font rendering, the linked and unlinked arrows look about the same (that is, a bit washed out and blurry in each case). Can you take a screenshot of how it looks on your screen? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I know how to get a screen shot and then send it to you here. My browser is Windows XP Home ... perhaps you could send me instructions on how to do it. My name is Milt Beychok and my email address is (replace the xxx with cox). - mbeychok 22:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I actually don't know an easy way to save a screenshot using standard Windows software. (Hitting the "Print Screen" key will put a screenshot on the Clipboard, but then you need to use an image editor to do anything with that screenshot!)
Anyway, I'll take a guess that the difference between the blue and black arrows comes from Microsoft ClearType. ClearType is a kind of anti-aliasing, which (counterintuitively) makes text look clearer by blurring it a bit. (You can tell that it's not quite having its intended effect with this arrow.) ClearType uses slight changes in color to make it look sharper on flat-screen monitors or laptop displays. If the arrow's supposed to be blue, though, it can't do as much with the color, so it will be fuzzier than the black arrow. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I've now got that screen shot as a .jpg file on my hard disk. How can I get it to you here? And, by the way, my screen is a flat, LCD screen. - mbeychok 22:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
On Wikipedia's left sidebar, near the bottom, click the link that says "Upload file". Click "Browse" which gives you a dialog box to choose the file. For "Destination filename", give it a descriptive name like "Footnote arrow screenshot.jpg". For the license, choose "Windows software screenshot", which is third from the bottom in the list, and then click the "Upload file" button. This will make a page called Image:Footnote arrow screenshot.jpg that contains your image.
If you do it with that exact name, you're done, because then I can just follow the link I just typed and see your image. But you can also include a thumbnail version of the image in this discussion or on the Wikipedia talk:Footnotes discussion, by typing [[Image:Footnote arrow screenshot.jpg|thumb]]. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The screen shot has been uploaded with the name you chose and it can be viewed by clicking on Image:Footnote arrow screenshot.jpg. The poor clarity of the blue single-use reference arrows is clearly visible. As for it being caused by Microsoft ClearType anti-aliasing, I'm no computer guru but I must say that this has not ever occurred for any other live hyperlinks (which are also blue) on any of the multitude of web sites (or anywhere in Wikipedia), that I have visited ... so why does it occur only when using Cite.php?? There must be something that can be done to correct this. - mbeychok 23:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Wow. I can see why you wanted to show me a screen shot -- that's worse than I expected! I was wrong that it's ClearType. You don't have ClearType turned on. In fact, your text is not being antialiased anywhere, except on the linked arrows which are antialiased almost out of existence. I have no idea what would make that difference.
Anyway, I'd still say the basic issue here is that, since the up arrow is an infrequently-used character, it's not tuned by a font designer to look good in all display situations, and there are going to be more imperfections in displaying it. I think your example may help as an argument for going back to the caret. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments ... it looks like we are both finally on the same wavelength. I do want to stress that there is nothing unusual about my computer ... a standard WindowsXP browser and a Sony 17-inch TFT LCD flat screen monitor. So if I am having this problem, I bet that so are a great many others.- mbeychok 00:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
One more thing. I would like to point out that when I was using the Ref Label and Ref Note method, the caret that it produced did not have this problem at all. - mbeychok 00:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

More about cite.php's poor rendering of reference arrows[edit]

If we look at the cite.php references in Tourette syndrome, they render as daggers and straight vertical lines, and they are all bold and well defined ... but they are at 80% font size. I changed them to 100% font size and then they looked exactly like the poorly defined vertical arrows I've been seeing on my IE browser. Look at these two screen shots of the Tourette references, one is using regular 100% font size and one is using 80% font size ==> image:Tourette references 100%.jpg and ==> image:Tourette references 80%.jpg

There is no question but that the font size changes the appearance entirely! Cite.php should abandon the arrows and go back to using the caret. - mbeychok 17:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin[edit]

My impression was that you were trying to make a point. William Lowell Putnam Competition was only a click away, so I didn't understand why you didn't simply go there for the source instead of using the {{unsourced}} tag. I do think there's a distinction to be made between articles that aren't sourced but could easily be, and those for which sourcing is actually difficult or impossible. Still, if your edit was in good faith then I apologize for drawing the inference. --phh (t/c) 15:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi Rspeer, on the Sock puppetry page there is a section on Advertising and soliciting single purpose accounts. This section used to describe advertising and soliticiting "meatpuppets". Since meatpuppets don't necessarily have to be single purpose accounts, can we change this back to advertising and soliciting meatpuppets? Thanks. - Dreadlocke 16:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What would you call a user who is posting something at another person's instruction? Would that be a meatpuppet, or is there another term? - Dreadlocke 19:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
How about vote stacking? I think that the word "meatpuppet" has been extended beyond usefulness by people who use it to mean "newbie" or "person I disagree with", plus we should use terms that are not as confusing to newbies. Are there any cases of "meatpuppetry" that aren't covered by single-purpose accounts or vote stacking? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
This is a tough one. While I do agree that both the terms “socketpuppet” and “meatpuppet” have been abused, this doesn’t mean they aren’t valid and descriptive terminology for the acts they reference – terms which are in wide use on the internet. It is doubtful that the new policy wording will inhibit those that use those words as an inappropriate weapon, but it will inhibit proper utilization. The new policy wording leaves loopholes for those actually using or advertising for meatpuppet activity. The wording can now be construed to mean only a prohibition for “new account” creation, where before any soliciting outside a proper RfC was considered inappropriate “meatpuppet” activity . The original wording made it against policy to advertise or solicit both externally and internally, even amongst other Wikipedia editors for supporters, or “meatpuppets”, the only allowed solitication is in the proper form of an RfC.
It’s better to detail the legitimate uses of the terms meatpuppet and sockpuppet than it is to just reference them as being something not to call new users just in case they aren’t actually puppets.
The main problem is that all meatpuppets are not single purpose accounts, nor are all single purpose accounts meatpuppets. There needs to be some clarity and strong words to delineate and prohibit actual meatpuppetry and the solitication of the same.
The section on "advertising and soliciting" is obviously about preventing meatpuppet activity and should be clearly and undeniably about that subject. The clearest message possible is to name the activity what it is widely known as: meatpuppetry. I don't think "vote stacking" quite addresses this issue. As a matter of fact, it appears that some of the verbiage in "vote stacking" contradicts some aspects of the prohibition against soliciting "all one's friends" to join an argument. - Dreadlocke 22:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Universal grammar[edit]

Thanks for your edit on universal grammar. I was having trouble phrasing it properly, and I knew it was going to sound like a POV, but the information had to be included somehow. It reads much better now, thanks. Is it just me, or is the whole page a bit bare? I might have to find some references and expand this somehow, unless someone beats me to it. --CRGreathouse 19:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, all I did was take out three words, but I appreciate it. Anyway, yes, the article is a bit crap. I'd love to have a well-referenced article that presents both sides well. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

More stupidly large pools[edit]

Special:Contributions/Flavor_Flav Kotepho 08:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Y'all really need to get the corncob out of your ass. The Quadrillion pool should NOT have been deleted, and neither should any others. They do no harm. Get over yourselves. Kurt Weber 14:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The only response this merits, of course, is a personal attack warning. Apparently it's his third one. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, not trying to be a jackass. I just see this kind of unnecessary, pointless, and destructive anal-retentiveness all the time and no matter what, all my attempts to stop it are thwarted. It's rather frustrating. Kurt Weber 21:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
You are really pushing it on the fourth personal attack, but I'll let it go. I'd appreciate it if you would stop insulting me for closing an MfD correctly. Perhaps you didn't look into how many of those "keep" votes were sockpuppets. I think you can find some better things to fight for on Wikipedia, and maybe you could even learn to do it with some civility. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Because VOTES DON'T MATTER AND ARE NOT A VALID BASIS ON WHICH TO CLAIM CONSENSUS. What matters are the arguments made--and there were NO good arguments made for deletion of that article. Kurt Weber 21:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
As for the "unnecessary, pointless, and destructive anal-retentiveness" thing, I'm going to ask you to AGF here. I realize that that phrase can be construed as somewhat inflammatory, but I honestly don't know what else to call it. I reiterate, I'm NOT trying to be a jackass, but I see this as a problem, and I don't see how simply calling things like I see them constitutes a personal attack--note that I am attacking your ACTIONS, not you personally. Certainly, I could simply not talk about it altogether--but that accomplishes nothing. By all means, if you could show me a truthful but less-inflammatory way to refer to it (or even convince me that there's nothing wrong with it), I'd love to hear it. Kurt Weber 21:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I am quite aware that you carefully worded your statement so that it referred to my actions, with the personal attack only implied. Very clever, but stop. As for the closing: "The infighting is so vicious because the stakes are so low." Instead of continuing to wiki-lawyer against an obvious consensus on an issue that doesn't matter at all, I suggest you visit Wikipedia:Open tasks and find something to contribute to the encyclopedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism[edit]

Hey! Since many admins watch this page, would you be so kind as to include in your edit summary either "list empty" or "list not empty" or something similar when you remove a report? Thanks! RadioKirk talk to me 21:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL wups, never mind. :) RadioKirk talk to me 21:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Yep, sorry that I forgot it at first. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedias's Cite.php differs from Wiikipedia's. Can you fix?[edit]

If you compare Wikipedia's Cite.php at Help:Footnotes with Wikimedia's Cite.php at m:Help:Footnotes, you will see that:

  • Wikipedia uses the caret (^) and supercripts a, b, c, etc.
  • Wikimedia uses the vertical arrow (↑) and superscripts 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, etc.

Since you quickly and efficiently changed our Wikipedia version from using the arrow to using the caret, I thought that you might have the know-how to change the Wikimedia version so that it is consistent with the Wikipedia version. Can you do so? I think the inconsistency should be resolved, don't you? - mbeychok 04:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I could do that here because I'm an admin. I'm not an admin on Meta-Wiki. Sorry. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you know anyone there that could do it? I've tried without any luck. - mbeychok 07:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Social Choice and Individual Values[edit]

Dear Mr. Speer: Looks like you had a major hand in getting Voting system to RFA status. I've been working on the above article for Kenneth Arrow's celebrated book of the same name. I've put announcements on Talk pp. for all plausible articles (including Voting system, which the article refers to under "See also" as Social choice function). I'd love it if you could give your reactions to the above, but realistically it looks like you've got enough on your plate. Any other suggestions for getting feedback? My thanks.

BW, Thomasmeeks 18:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Rspeer/Archive 4, thank you for participating in my RfA. Unfortunately, a great number of oppose voters felt that I lacked experience, and a consensus was not reached (the final tally was 30/28/10). Perhaps I will try again in another few months when I have a few more edits under my belt. If I do, I hope I can count on your support. Thanks again! Cool3 talk 20:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

SUKI (tm) is VERIFIABLE[edit]

See the Talk:Suki page -- SUKI (tm) has been verified as a MAJOR INTERNATIONAL RELIGION, and you have no justification whatsoever to revert any legitimately-made edits. 19:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't been verified at all. Verification requires a reliable source. That's all you need to provide. Until then, you will continue to be reverted, because the fact that this has gone on so long without you providing even one reliable source is a pretty strong indication that SUKI is a hoax. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And so I get your typical response. How about you try again, without the personal attacks? Civility is a policy on Wikipedia just like reliable sources are. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, let's continue the discussion on your talk page. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? You are the one who keeps insisting on vandalizing any references to SUKI (tm), The New World Religion (tm), major international religion. The discussion would be more appropriately kept on your page. 20:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism aren't going to win anyone over. I was simply suggesting keeping the discussion in one place. Here is fine, too.

Anyway, let us resume. MIT's pretty good at interlibrary loans. Let's suppose I can get access to any scholarly publication, even an obscure journal of religious studies, if that's where SUKI is documented. All I'm asking is for you to point me to such a publication. (These religious studies professors who all know about SUKI have to get their information somewhere, right?) Once you've done that, that makes SUKI verifiable according to Wikipedia's standards. You can even include it as a source when you add information about SUKI, and it won't be reverted for lack of verifiability anymore. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi There! Can you translate my name in what language you know please, and then post it Here. I would be very grateful if you do (if you know another language apart from English and the ones on my userpage please feel free to post it on) P.S. all th translations are in alpahbetical order so when you add one please put it in alpahbetical order according to the language. Thanks!!! Abdullah Geelah 21:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Larian Studios[edit]

What was the content of Larian Studios before you deleted it? Was there a discussion surrounding its deletion? Wouter Lievens 11:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • There was no discussion; it was deleted uncontroversially by the proposed deletion process, because the article was a blatant advertisement. Someone proposed it for deletion for that reason, nobody objected in 5 days, and I deleted it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)