User talk:Sticky Parkin/Archive 4

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

Place to find articles

All the articles were under the Category:Psychology and its various subcategories. You would be amazed at what you find dumped there. Some I could find proper places for, but others I had to wing it. I make up some categories and made some mistakes. My standards got lower as I went on. I began to realize that everyone thinks everything goes under psychology! Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 00:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Do me a favor, as you did once before? Look on the talk page of Che Guevara and see if you think the long rant about me at the end by User:Redthoreau is a personal attack. The also is one on User talk:Coppertwig He has also posted the same rant on other users pages. However, I am afraid to template him myself. Please use your own judgment. I am surprised that this is allowed at wikipedia but I guess I am wrong. Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 01:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Amazing ... each time you (pretend) to ask me to leave you alone, you then return to seeking out more people to ingratiate yourself to, in order to insulate your poor behavior and spread fictitious allegations against me. I am tired of constantly responding to your obsessive pleas to any editor you can find, to aid you in your quest of irresponsible behavior. Please stop casting out of context accusations to other editors, who are not aware of your long record of disobeying wikipedia policy in this situation. --- As to you Merkinsmum, I am sorry that he has chosen you as the next editor in a long list of people who repeatedly refuse his potential attempts to violate my rights as a wikipedia editor. My apologies for defending myself against his accusations on your talk page, but I hope you understand he has a record of this sort of public behavior. Redthoreau (talk TR 01:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replying on both your talk pages- more to come on yours RT, only just read this.:) special, random, Merkinsmum 01:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Very sorry I asked you as that certainly backfired. A big mistake on my part. I won't do that again, ever. I promise! Mattisse (Talk) 04:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi friendly-folk

Howdy, well meaning friendly folker. Uh, Thanks for your support, I saw you stick your neck out for me at the absurdity of that guy getting all ruffled up over one single word in that old topic. Sorry I gave him the cleaver to chip it off with my snappy response to him. But I looked at his profile, and i believe his account was created the day the joshua account was banned. Also, the way he responded to you, arrogantly telling you that you cannot post in the ANI, and then brining up something should have been a dead point. Further how he threatened me with blocking, despite him not being an admin or even an established member, It's a pattern i find more than similar to Joshua's actions.

But really, I just wanted to know, what's a wind up merchent? In your debt, ShieldDane (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hard to keep it clean with so many mud-slingers out there...and I'm on spring break right now, which is why I've not done more editing work. ShieldDane (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


I'm not sure, I've never seen a page like that before. It's poorly done, but it seems too long to merge into Carlos Castaneda's main article, so I guess it could be kept. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 02:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No prob

That's alright, I'm content. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Smiley Cabal

I don't think that they have a userbox. Basketball110 02:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi protect?

No, thanks... gives them somewhere else to have their "fun". ;-) (I mean I'd rather they mess around with my user page than the articles. κaτaʟavenoTC 00:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


Dear Merkinsmum, I see that you are doing a hard work by editing my (though in wiki nothing is mine!) article. In fact it has a long history. If you really want to edit it with full scientific effort you will need to know some important background. So if you feel really interested, please give me an e-mail address where I can discuss very clearly which is not possible at talk page. You can mail me to and give your e-mail address.

My second article Death and adjustment hypotheses requires the availability of the theory book first. It is a very new book, reviewed very positively at first class journals and being used as reference book within 4 months of its publication. Its name is QUEST FOR A NEW DEATH: Death and adjustment hypotheses and its price is 12.99 US$. It is very much available at

In fact I was requesting Mattisse to work with these two. If you are interested e-mail me or if you are not write to me on my talk page.

With so many thanks. Shoovrow (talk) 06:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

My link

If you want to see the list of my work please visit and follow the links there. Also I have two other peer reviewed journal article on the similar issues that is not cited in the web page are in the journal - Omega of Baywood publisher and the Journal of the medical college of woman and hospital. The omega article will be available when its 57th volume will be on internet and also printed. The JMCWH article will only be available in printed journal. Apart from those that are written by me, two famous journal of death has reviewed my hypotheses [actually the hypotheses book] and this hypotheses is nothing but the more mature form of the concept of death and adjustment. The journals are "Death Studies" of Taylor and Francis, PA and "Omega" of Baywood, NY. Among them Death studies has sent me the final review report that will be printed after the fall of 2008. you can confirm it by contacting the editor. I will copy and paste it below. The Omega report is under construction. I don't have it. Both of them are written by respected reviewers. Please read the following report prepared at Death studies, provably the highest ranked journal for death and thanatology.

The Death Studies review report

Reviewing the Phenomenon of Death – A Scientific Effort from the Islamic World

A review of Quest for a new death: Death and Adjustment Hypotheses, by Mohammad Samir Hossain, Ph.D. Charleston SC: BookSurge Publishing, 2007 pp. 198 (ISBN 1-4196-8454-8 Parameter error in {{isbn}}: Invalid ISBN.). $12.99. Reviewed by Dr. Md. Zakaria Siddique.

Mohammad Samir Hossain, a physician and teacher of psychiatry at Medical College for Women and Hospital at Dhaka, Bangladesh, is the author of about 50 mental health articles in different journals and magazines. After his medical graduation Dr. Samir has studied abnormal psychology, psychiatry and psychotherapy from institutions including Harvard Medical School, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Bircham International University, and other institutions of higher learning (Dictionary of International Biography, 33rd Edition, 2006). His area of specialization is thanatology, with a focus on attitudes toward death. Md. Zakaria Siddique, a psychiatrist in Bangladesh, is the Head of the Department of Psychiatry, Medical College for Women and Hospital at Dhaka. He is also the Executive Editor of the psychiatric magazine Monojagot (web address:, the first mental health magazine in the Bangla language. He has published numerous articles on mental health in different journals and magazines. He has so far written four books on mental health issues.

Professor Hossain’s book, Quest for a new death, is unique in its methodological focus on the phenomenon of death and our human reactions to it (Concept of death and adjustment, 2007). I believe that the diversified education of the author in biological and behavioral sciences helped most in developing his multidimensional hypotheses on the natural but neglected phenomenon of death, which is ultimately the heart of the book. Because research on death attitudes has been submerged in this sense, especially in the Islamic world, progressing with such research is like exploring lost cities in dark sea. Reviewing this work poses similar challenges, as it raises many new, but frequently obscured issues for scientific thanatology as well as offering glimpses into death attitudes in a cross cultural perspective. While dealing with death as a natural phenomenon for every individual and society, this work abandons a focus on the point of death or dying, and instead investigates the more exclusive concepts pertaining to death as an ongoing state. The ‘death’ it speaks of is truly new for science. Thus, the book’s subtitle is apt—Death and adjustment hypotheses—as it draws on a foundation of the author’s empirical research on Islamic death attitudes as an example of nonscientific conceptions of death (10% of the book) to build a theoretical framework (90% of the contents). The empirical parts are informed by conventional statistical analyses on death attitudes, whereas the conceptual parts mainly follow epistemological methodology, a less conventional way of conducting research in behavioral science. I think a small section describing its methodology could have clarified it for readers, especially for those who are not much acquainted with epistemological methods. The book is presented in four main sections. Hossain begins, appropriately, by discussing different relevant topics on death. He then clarifies the concept of death, especially in the sense it will concern him in the pages that follow. With these matters of definition accomplished, he highlights the relationship of death as a universal phenomenon to people’s mental health, a topic that he explores in some depth as it applies to the problem that death represents for otherwise healthy adults who have to adjust to this reality. Helpfully for his readers, Hossain discusses several of the specific scales he developed for his research, which are not very available otherwise, such as the Death Rejection Score Scale (DRS), Neurotic Symptom Score Scale (NSS), and others, and puts these to use in the context of a formal research project whose results he summarizes. In summary, this section serves to specify some unfamiliar concepts and methods used in this book. Questions can still be raised, however, about the scientific status of the measuring tools described in this section, although they have been used successfully in research published in the peer reviewed literature (e.g., Hossain, Siddique and Chowdhury, 2007). The second section of the book concentrates on the central argument of the death and adjustment hypothesis. In comparison with the other sections it is a vast one, describing the hypothesis in nineteen parts. The overarching focus of this section is directed towards the proposition that the way we understand the relationship of death and existence is incorrect and that this misunderstanding is harmful for us as human beings. The topics discussed in different parts are 1) the experience of death in vivo and in vitro, 2) the process of identifying a truth, 3) our current stance toward death, 4) people with exceptional attitudes towards death, 5) major non-scientific concepts of death, 6) the way death challenges our wellbeing, 7) traditional scientific attitudes towards death and their validity, 8) basic criteria of life, 9) the possibility of death’s ending one’s existence, 10) logical considerations of the criteria of death, 11) the necessity of evaluating these criteria, 12) death anxiety and adjustment, 13) the history of attitudes towards death and stages of adjustment with death, 14) the popular adoption of stage theories of adaptation to death in mass culture, 15) consequences of maladjustment with death, 16) the ambiguity of death and our dissociation from it, 17) the vicious cycle of ambiguity and dissociation, 18) comparison of the practical impacts of different concepts of death, and 19) declaration of the hypothesis. Rather boldly, Hossain’s hypothesis ultimately demands the installment of the concept, universally, that our existence does not end with death. Also, it indicates that we are now dissociated from the phenomenon of death due to our maladjustment in this respect. Throughout the discussion of the hypothesis, the author adduces logical and theoretical support for this claim from several sources. Although this convergence of evidence is persuasive, I felt that if I had read the declaration before the 19 parts in detail, it would have been easier for me to go through the book, especially the second section. Substantively, this sweeping section of Hossain’s argument draws upon the important work of Kubler-Ross (1997) in discussing stages of dying, and perhaps more significantly and pervasively, the cultural perspective on death attitudes developed most eloquently by Aries (1974), which informs this book as a whole. Finally, in the last part of this section, Hossain shares some personal feelings concerning the hypothesis and its impact on his life, as well as some discussion of the concept of death and its relevance for Muslim terrorism, which adds to the scientific and social value of the work. But these last commentaries are actually footnotes to the research, as the author also candidly admits. Section three of the book is on our attitude towards death. It begins by discussing the problematic aspects of the attitude, mainly the defensive ones that exclude death from conscious thought. Hossain then undertakes a detailed analysis of this attitude from a psychological point of view, explaining why this prevalent attitude is problematic, and how gaps exist between our death-related activities and formal beliefs. Interestingly, this analysis has an historical dimension, revealing the progressive deterioration in the attitude across the course of civilization, considering the etiology of the changes and their related psychological processes. Like section one, this section provides also another base for further development of Hossain’s hypotheses. But this section is easier going due to the interesting historical discussions and analyses of history through the lens of psychoanalytic theories. In brief, it is much closer to the science we know. In my view, the fourth section is the most important of the book, as it represents a synopsis of all the previous parts. Careful reading also reveals that it is a total reconstructive approach for the whole work. The concise primary version of the hypothesis has been installed in this section and a second part has also been developed as a new extension of this basic thesis. This second part ultimately emphasizes the importance of morality for a genuine accommodation of death in human life as implied by the first hypothesis. In this section the author tests his hypotheses conceptually using the theories of Hamlyn (1970) and proposes a new psychiatric diagnosis, termed Death Adjustment Disorder (DAD). In my opinion, this is a bold proposal, as the number of DAD patients will be numerous if such a proposal were taken seriously, as we all tend to experience some kind of difficulty in integrating the reality of death. Thus, the various strands of argument in this section are very important from a practical point of view. They also clarify the primary purpose of the book and thus the whole research. Following section four of the book, Hossain provides an “inference” or summary statement to present more succinctly the scientific concern of the work, especially about our current condition and the unknown future. This section clearly elaborates all the aspects of his multifaceted argument in brief. But unlike the summary chapters of many other books, it requires a thorough reading of the whole preceding volume, especially to accept Hossain’s statements as scientific ones, although I as a reader found them acceptable morally and socially. Of all the parts of the book, the portion entitled “A Final Statement” is the liveliest, conveying the core of the author’s argument with passion as well as a sense of truth. It also acknowledges that the book goes against the traditions of many in contemporary civilization. Those who disagree with Hossain’s previous arguments might even feel negatively after reading this part. But still I applaud the author’s boldness of expression, which in my view is the beauty of the book. How successful is Hossain in achieving his stated purposes? Ultimately, I believe that the major steps he proposes are impossible to complete in a single small book, however much it is anchored in provisional data, theory, and passionate belief. In particular, the book’s core hypothesis that death is not the end of human life, and that integration of this knowledge would transform human beings and cultures would require many further steps and analyses to be implemented practically. I agree with all the concepts and declarations theoretically, but their practical acceptance deserves much more consideration, and this would be the job of a dozen book-length treatises, or a hundred journal articles. Thus, as a reviewer of this project, I concluded that the book really represents as an important guide for future scientific studies. I believe that Hossain can play a role as a pioneer in this work, providing a starting point for his own subsequent inquiry and that of like-minded others. At the outset of this review, I commented about the depth of Hossain’s project and hinted at the novelty of his style of presentation and pursuit of his central hypothesis. But in the end I found the historical and psychological development of the book’s thesis to be intriguing and persuasive, and its implications practical and useful. So my frank hope would be that further works in this line continue to flourish for the benefits they could carry at both a scientific and social level. As a book for ordinary readers, this work is unlikely to be a bestseller, as it lacks the ease of understanding and pleasurable focus required for popular success. But it surely is a pacemaker in one important movement in science, and in this sense could have a different sort of impact on civilization, given the centrality of death for human life.

References Aries P. (1974). Western Attitudes toward Death: From the Middle Ages to the Present. New York: Vintage. Concept of death and adjustment. (2007, November 16). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 16:59, December 15, 2007, from Dictionary of International Biography (33rd ed.). (2006). Cambridge, UK: International Biographical Centre (Melrose Press Ltd). Hamlyn, D.W. (1970). The theory of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor. Hossain, M.S., Siddique, M.Z. and Chowdhury, T.R. (2007). Impacts and adjustments of the phenomenon "Death,” in Bangladeshi Muslims with Different Extents of Religiosity. Current Research in Social Psychology, 12, 179 – 185. Kubler-Ross E. (1997). On death and dying. New York: Touchstone Press.

Thank you for patient reading.Shoovrow (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

About Death Studies report

In fact when the review report was finalized it was given a serial which was behind many other reports. I requested the Editor Robert A. Neimeyer of the University of Memphis to let me know the provable volume in which it will be published. But he said, it is too long a list of review reports and he can only tell that it should be published after the Fall of 2008 and not before that. He gave me the copy of the finalized and accepted report just to help my wiki articles.Shoovrow (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Some additional materials

I think you deserve some clarification about the field that I'm working in. Primarily you can read my primary thoughts compiled at ezinearticles for online availability. Also you will find some idea about the pattern of works I do from here [1].

First of all, the things I have done,humbly, were not approached before scientifically. My targets were to define or deal with the definition/concept of death scientifically (methodologically). I saw that there is a so called scientific concept that demands that existence ends with death. Other than the scientific concept, the most widely used concepts are the religious concepts. Among all the religious concepts the concept demanding the continuation of existence after death is the major. So I took the scientific concept and as non-scientific one I chose the major one. Because, there are too many concepts of death and other than sampling like this I won't be able to proceed in a life time. So, though I never highlighted Islam or Christianity, in my case any religion highlighted automatically is just the result of sampling.

You will see here [2] that with the variation in concept of death one's mental health can vary. So we need a universal and standard concept of death for all, irrespective of race, religion or region. I found that the traditional concept, that is demanded as scientific, is defective methodologically and also harmful for mental health. Thus my research revealed, primarily, that when concept of death is better, the adjustment with death is also with better. After my primary research was published at the university of Iowa [3] I finalized the article 'concept of death and adjustment'.

Shoovrow (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Surprising information

You will be surprised to know, most of the journals including the Iowa one, Death studies and some other very high class journal expressed about their lack of reviewer in this sector. Finally, when I saw that there is an extreme lack of people working on this issue, after the suggession from Robert A neimeyer I published my book that contain all of my works till then, and then had it reviewed, so that my works ultimately gets reviewed by other scholars. Even when the book was submitted for review there was reviewer's crisis too. But Mr. Neimeyer was kind enough to solve it. So now, leaving the direct submission of the articles to peer reviewed journals, I am writing my second book on the same issue with a lot of new researches and thoughts and ultimately I will submit it for book review in peer reviewed journals for the entrance of my work in the world of science. I believe, for the pattern of my work, this style is much less harassing. I even approached Nature - the famous journal and appealed too. But even after praising my work as very satisfactory, they regret that this trend of research does not match them. Psychiatry referred to psychology, psychology referred to philosophy and finally reviewer's crisis. My works that are in press for Omega and Journal of Medical College for Women and Hospital are also prestigious in the eyes of others. You will be happy to know that my Hypotheses books are formally accepted as reference books at the University of Memphis, University of Kuwait, Bircham International University, Bangladesh Academy of Sciences, Bangladesh College of Physicians and Surgeons, and under consideration for the Royal college of Psychiatry at London.

After all the above, I am facing difficulty just because this issue is an off scene phenomenon that is represented in the works. Thats why I'm so desperate to have these issues on wiki cos they are no more my research, they have become the parts of science, though very few know this unless they are induced to search for these. I believe all the grounds I have for the hypotheses and related works are good enough to be called non-Original Research. I will request you to approach the article "Death and Adjustment Hypotheses" too, but for that you will have to spend 12.99 US$ to buy QUEST FOR A NEW DEATH from and also read the Death Studies report on the hypotheses book. If needed you can inquire at the editors place of Death studies journal about the review.Shoovrow (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for your note. I appreciate the heads-up but, frankly, I've already done everything with the article that I felt I should do. I rescued it from speedy deletion because I became aware it was not a hoax, and defended it on that basis from an extremely obstreperous editor. However, I was also very clear with the creator on his talk page that the idea of a division of HP having its own article was unusual and that other editors would probably try to delete it on that basis. I believe that's a very legitimate reason to try to delete that page and I note that a prod tag has recently been added to the page, with which I don't really disagree. I would hope that some of the information gets added to the Hewlett Packard article, because I wouldn't like to see useful information lost from the 'pedia entirely, but I won't be making any heroic efforts to defend the page further. I don't think I will take any further hand in this unless there is something you'd like me to do that will assist you -- if that is the case, I'd be happy to help if you leave me a note telling me what you'd like. Thanks again for your courtesy in informing me. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

straw man

I disagree that it wasn't a straw man question, but that's not a discussion for AN/I either. I have "Have you been touched by His Noodly Appendage?" on my user page, but it's certainly not a question I would ask my religious mother. It also wasn't being used as a response to a question. It's simply a decoration that they've chosen to display on their page. --OnoremDil 01:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that it's the most civil thing on a user page. I just think it's a lame thing to be worrying about, and it appears very little concern was actually expressed prior to bringing it to AN/I. --OnoremDil 02:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Size matter

Have you solved your pixelation problem? It's set like this:

{{userbox|white|skyblue|[[Image: .png|45px]]|This user

Hope it helps. Trekphiler (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to put you to work :D Trekphiler (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I did get that. That's why I figured I could jab & get away with it. ;) Trekphiler (talk) 14:32 & 14:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the User:Filll/AGF Challenge

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for answering the User:Filll/AGF Challenge Filll (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Help with a spooky bit of Latin

Hi, forgive me the random question.:) I spotted you on the talkpage for the "Latin" article and thought I would ask your advice/opinion. Satanists say Ave Satanas, but one says that "Ave Satana" [4] is correct. However, the theme from the Omen, for which I might make an article, is called Ave Satani.[5] All these claim to mean, Hail Satan. So as you are interested in Latin, I wondered if you could give me your opinion as to which is correct? Merkin's mum 21:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ave Satana is closer to being right; Satana is the vocative case of Satanas if that word is declined according to the Greek a-stem declension. But the Vulgate uses Satan, indeclinable, like most Hebrew names are; so if we follow its lead it's simply Ave Satan, and that probably is the best form. Ave Satani is quite wide of the mark. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Butting in (!) exactly what he said: Ave Satan! ColdmachineTalk 09:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

your message on Giano's page

Any particular reason you are advising G that he has "man boobs"? After all he has been through it may be considered a little harsh... :~D LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


Hello Merkinsmum. You opened a complaint at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard about HP SPaM. A number of people have since shown up to make improvements. I think the current article is now well-enough referenced to show notability. They have also added enough online sources so a person can figure out what they are talking about. Is it all right with you if the COI report is closed, or do you believe that more action is needed? EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Belated reply

I believe you e-mailed me long time ago about why I left Wikipedia. I didn't check that e-mail account before now. There were two reasons:

  1. I was simply spending too much time on the wiki, but more importantly
  2. Wikipedia made me behave like a jerk.

You asked what disputes I'm most ashamed of. They are basically all those surrounding User:NBeale. I obviously don't want to link to my worst behaviour, but the following might give a taste of it: User_talk:SOPHIA/archive5#Countering_Bealean_Bias. --Merzul (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, well, now I will come to the Tony Robbins article and insist that Jack Black calling him "banana-hand" is put into the article. --Merzul (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha... on the other hand, why am I even surprised, what on earth was I thinking? Of course such a fact is mentioned in the article. It wouldn't be Wikipedia otherwise, would it?
So then I guess I'll have to go there and insist that this libelous information be removed as a gross violation of WP:BLP. ;) --Merzul (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, I will think of something for you... clearly, we need to recognize great content production at a much lower level, and much earlier, than having written FAs. Even small contributions, e.g., adding a few sources to an articles, is important. But it is not just Barnstars, there is no better way to get friends around here than to fight some POV-pushers. An excellent proof of this point: do you remember, who we were fighting when we first met? :) Some guy who was trying to put some BLP violating stuff into Gillian McKeith... --Merzul (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course I'm back to editing religion articles. I will soon go for a bit less controversial ones, less Dawkins and more philosophy, but for now, I want to finish what I started, and get the critical reception of The God Delusion a bit in proportion. But now I must leave to take a short time off, tomorrow is a workday, isn't it? --Merzul (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Helloooooo, Satan!

Me again. In the Black Mass article, it says "Both Black Masses end with the expression "Ave, Satanas!". This is also correct Church Latin, and is a reversal of Jesus' statement to Satan in the Latin Vulgate Bible, "Vade, Satanas!" (Matthew 4:10)." Now I can see where they are wrong, as that phrase in Matthew is in reported speech so that's probably in a different tense. But, could you possibly tell me which version of the Bible that is in, so I can change it? Or did earlier versions of the Vulgate decline and newer ones not, or something? Merkin's mum 23:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, both forms exist in the Vulgate. The reported text from Matthew may be a misprint, or simply a translator's error; the Greek is ὕπαγε σατανᾶ (hypage Satana), in the expected vocative case. Bear in mind that the Greek declension was somewhat alien in Latin, like classical plurals are in English, so they may have simply gotten it wrong. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For my barnstar! I love the title of it, and of course that it has a cat (your cat!) as the image makes it even better. You're worringly correct though: I've touched three articles on the Dark Arts this the beginning of the end for me?! I'll have to balance it out by visiting Jesus. ColdmachineTalk 09:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Bus stops

I don't know about the bus stops; I was under the assumption that transit stations were inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 00:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Prod pass

The prod passed at Ave Satanas. Does that redeem me any?! ColdmachineTalk 08:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused.

On AN/I, you said that Gavin.collins' request for comment was made by "the fans," who are bullying him because he attempts to remove non-notable material that the fans value disproportionately. I looked into the "Evidence of disputed behavior" of the RfC, and everything on that list is not an issue of what he does but how he does it (excessive and inappropriate use of tags might be arguable, but adding the notability, primarysources and nofootnotes tags in one go is clearly redundant.)

I got the impression that you thought the RfC was made to attack Gavin, but I'd rather not assume that. --Kizor 11:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


Re this comment: I never was a Brownie. They wanted us to be well-behaved, and I wasn't that sort of kid :)

Anyway, good work exploring the issues at ANI. It's best that everyone is clear what they are doing here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Your userpage

Hi there. I've taken the liberty to selectively delete an inappropriate entry from your history as it contained information relating to another site, and as a woman, I also understand where you're coming from re. your comments on David's talk page - Alison 21:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Advice: detach

Nothing good will come from continued interaction with DS. Just let it go and let others handle it. FWIW, his behavior is deplorable, but you really should watch what you write, both here and on WR. I searched through your comments on WR (assuming they're yours - and you don't have to confirm or deny that) and I found nothing extraordinarily bad, but you still shouldn't do it. Rise above it. Remember, there are human beings behind those screen names.

(and don't worry about that essay - you've apologized sincerely, and that's more than enough) ATren (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(reply to your reply on my talk) A few points:
  1. no, you didn't say anything terrible on WR, and you certainly don't deserve to be threatened because of it. But as I said, in the future keep it impersonal. Comment on what they're doing without falling into the tempting trap of mockery. I know it's easy to fall into that mode, with some of the characters on WR, but in the future just be careful. And yes, you are more than within your rights to comment on an editor's actions there, just keep it impersonal.
  2. Re: the essay - if you feel threatened, then I suggest quietly taking it up with an admin you trust. Explain the situation, that you made some offhand comments, and that your attempts to apologize have been forcfully rejected. I already notified Neil, who is keeping an eye on things, and I'm keeping a close eye, but you may want to follow up yourself. The essay will not help matters - he may settle down for now, but now that he knows how sensitive you are to this, he may start all over again the next time he has a dispute with you. Better to deal with it now.
  3. One more thing: in the future, I would not suggest having two different usernames on related sites like WR and Wikipedia. You may have had your reasons, but it gives the appearance of tag-team sock puppetry, even though they were different sites, and even if you didn't intend it as such (and I don't believe that you did). So perhaps now is a good time to abandon one or the other (or both) account names and make it consistent. Again, a trusted admin (perhaps Allison) could help with that.
Good luck, and let me know if you need anything. ATren (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I have replied on your talk. Agree with all your comments, except that what people usually mean by "tag team sockpuppetry" is not that, and I used another name for specific reasons. Still your comments are wise. Merkin's mum 14:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, I know it wasn't really sock puppetry, and I know you had reasons to do it. It just gives the appearance of a deception that is similar to sock puppetry. I was not commenting on your intent, which I believe was good faith, but solely on how it might look to an uninvolved party. ATren (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For my second barnstar. I'd peeked in on ANI and read through what was going on, and hey presto when I checked my watchlist I saw your userpage had been vandalised as well. I'm not getting involved; seems a perfect example of Wikidrama to me. I'll rv trolling on userpages though if it comes to it. The only thing I don't get is that there appears to be several 'get out of jail free' passes when it comes to WP:CIV with this utterly bizarre. The opening line of that policy says "Civility is a code of conduct for editing on all Wikipedias" (emphasis is mine). It then goes on to say "A pattern of gross incivility...may result in warnings or blocks" (again, emphasis mine). And, finally, not that I need to be telling any of this to you, it says "one single act of incivility can also cross the line if bad enough; for instance, an egregious personal attack, a threat against another person, or severe profanity directed against another contributor" (yes, emphasis mine). So, I guess if you contribute a plethora of valuable material to Wikipedia it gives you a free pass to act like a WP:DICK later on. Must bear that in mind in the lead up to me throwing a tantrum if I ever feel the need, like some apparently do. ColdmachineTalk 08:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


I think you have done all that you can do right now. Have you ever gottne in a fight that you just needed to walk away from, simmer down a bit then come sort it out? I always find it frustrating when I am trying to simmer, and the other person just keeps going ad nauseum about it (whether apologizing or defending themselves). Eitherway, it is never good to be the guy next to the dead horse holding the stick. If anything, I reccomend sending him a sincere email explaining your self (but dont be too overly defensive). Avoid pointing fingers at anybody and leave it at that. Hope this helps. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 14:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


I notice you had identified an earlier version of this article as a copyright violation, and FisherQueen subsequently redirected it. Recently, an IP editor has started undoing the redirection. It might be helpful to have a few more eyes watching it. Aleta Sing 18:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much

An investment that's earning returns already. Thanks for that! Noroton (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I see you assigned yourself lines

I hope you hand-typed them! :D Enigma message 02:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Good work, then! I'm proud to say that I actually knew what a cilice was, although that's all thanks to Dan Brown. Enigma message 02:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Just occurred to me that you should rest your hands for a bit. Haha. Don't reply tonight, or else! <attempts to think up dire consequences> Enigma message 02:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No prob :)

It's no problem :) I just didn't want to see this situation become inflamed any further, or lose valuable editors and contributors from both sides of the camp. I value all of your contributions, and that of David, and this episode that involved WR doesn't really need to consume this much of time of all involved parties. Everyone's apologized or moved on, or taking a break, and I think that at this point, that the case is pretty much closed. I don't intend on sanctioning any editor :) seicer | talk | contribs 02:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about the essay

I posted that longish summary on the talk page to make everyone aware that there was a threat. I was a little concerned that the essay demand would get lost in the conversation about the slur. So they at least know (or should know) that the issue went further than the slur. That, to me, is enough to guarantee that he won't follow up. If he ever threatens you again, though, you should immediately seek help. And if I were you, I'd change your usernames all around. Your cat would understand. :-) ATren (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)