User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/Archive 14

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


Windows 2000 Screenshot[edit]

I hope, for the speed of your computer and hence your sanity, that you let that defrag finish :) --Kiand 14:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Ha! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


Re your comment on WP:FAC, can you explain what causes your confusion? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I found it really confusing too, took ages before I could understand it properly. The rules basically are every row, and every column, and every 3x3 square has to have one each of the numbers from 1-9. Slac speak up! 05:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed - I was about to say something like that: it is really that simple.
The lead says:
The aim of the puzzle is to enter a number from 1 through 9 in each cell of a grid, frequently a 9×9 grid made up of 3×3 subgrids (called "regions"), starting with various numbers given in some cells (the "givens"). Each row, column and region must only contain one instance of each number.
Do you have any ideas how that could be made clearer? -- ALoan (Talk) 08:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I do. I don't know where to get one from, though. Frankly, I was really surprised that it was featured that quickly: it wasn't that good. Slac speak up! 04:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Win 2K architecture[edit]

Would u mind if I rewrite and simplify the leadin in that page?  =Nichalp (Talk)= 13:22, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

wb :) Dysprosia 07:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me for not doing anything to the lead-in; I'm really busy taking care of objections to two of my FA's on FAC. Maybe when I have nothing else to do I could give it a hand...?  =Nichalp (Talk)= 18:39, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Apostolic Council and Council of Jerusalem[edit]

These pages sure could use some help, perhaps you're interested?


Thanks for bringing this to my attention. The POV section seems to have been re-written in a fairly NPOV way; what do you think? Jayjg (talk) 04:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I had read it yes. And have explained repeatedly what I was attacking - the tone of your initial comments and the assertion of "POV" before acquainting yourself with the subject. Useful comments, IMO, do not take the form of your interventions, which were were almost bound to have a negative effect because their over-excited and judgemental tone. Paul B 09:22, 12 June 2005 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent me. I said you appeared to be so ignorant of the subject that it was difficult to discuss meaningfully was is and isn't NPOV in this case. Of course I assume I too am ignorant of many subjects, including some in which you may be very knowldgable. Paul B 12:07, 12 June 2005 (UTC)
You are getting paranoid now! The sentence you italicised is not about making you or the other two editors "look bad". It says that it isn't a coincidence that two are Jewish and one is a Christian evangelical. Surely it isn't. The concept of systemic bias is not the same as personal prejudice. It's the expression used within Wikipeda itself. For example there is systemic bias towards articles on US sci fi shows. That's because the contributor profile that people with interest in US sci fi shows are more likely to add articles than people with an interest in Brazilian soap operas. Paul B 07:35, 16 June 2005 (UTC)

Image:Wikipedia thong.jpg[edit]

I see that you uploaded the pic of the Wikipedia thong. this is listed as a copywritten image under fair use. where did this come from and why cant we get it under a better licence? Cavebear42 18:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Secret Cabal Wikilove :D[edit]

bottoms up!

Don't you dare bring it back full, man! :D Project2501a 12:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shhhh!!!! We don't want outsiders to know... - Ta bu shi da yu 23:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for moving discussion on Ed Poor...[edit]

... and sorry I put it on the wrong page. Peace, BrandonYusufToropov 13:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Convention on Psychotropic Substances[edit]

I see that the FAC failed due primarily to broken links and a lack of footnotes. Perhaps it would be best to wait until a footnote system is coded into the WikiMedia software, rather than spending the time laboriously converting the references into footnotes? After that's done, and the article is migrated to the new footnote system, that might be a good time to fix the broken links. I tried to convert these references to a similar footnote system as what you have at Windows 2000, but the problem is that some references appear more than once, so that the notes would also have to appear multiple times, which looks ugly and hard-to-read. They are interspersed, so it's not a situation where I could simply put "Ibid." a bunch of times. Remember me 16:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty much fixed now. Thanks, Remember me 03:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If Smoddy doesn't get to it first, please move Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Convention on Psychotropic Substances to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Convention on Psychotropic Substances/archive1 in accordance with instruction 4 at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. This page seems otherwise ready to be placed back on FAC. Thanks, Remember me 22:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Er... is there an issue that you need fixed via page deletion? I am no longer an admin so cannot assist with anything other than regular page moves. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ne'ermind, Smoddy moved it. I was too new a user to make a page move. Remember me 13:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Anonymous editor[edit]

Hi Ta bu, and thanks. I saw that admission, but there didn't seem to be any point in blocking again. If I block the user name, he'll edit anonymously; if I block the IPs, he'll come back with others, so I gave up. He's not the only one playing these games at the moment on the Islam pages: see WP:AN/I#Trouble on Islam pages. However, I haven't encountered a situation like this before, and so would appreciate your advice: do you think I should block the user account and IP address for another 24 hours to make the point that these blocks have to be taken seriously? It's time to get another election organized for you, by the way: you need your stripes back. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

That template's a very good idea, Ta bu, thanks. Let me just check one thing: is it actually "legal" to block for a short time for a personal attack, perhaps on the grounds of disrupting Wikipedia? It would be very useful, because some of these pages are going to hell in a handbasket because of it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:37, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Mark Felt[edit]

I have placed on the talk page the sources of my material. I don't understand the footnote system you are using so I'll let you do it. PedanticallySpeaking 18:04, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Grace Note[edit]

Hey, sure, here you go: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Dunno if most of them are personal attacks, I just copied and pasted some instances in which Grace Note was rude to me and trying to make other people be too. Kapil 06:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Try: I'm sorry, Kapil. It's horrid of me to call you a rightwing troll. I'll stick to calling you a cunt in future[...] [9]. Note that Kapil also made repeated personal attacks of the same magnitude (2 days ago) but was eventually convinced to stop, and has behaved quite professionally ever since. Grace Note's comments cited, it should be noted, were placed on Kapil's talk page after this has taken place (unless I missed something along the way – possible). I wouldnt have expected Grace Note to say something like that; two days ago I would have expected Kapil to do so (supplant right with left-wing). Strange. El_C 06:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and TBSDY, note how Grace Note accused me of great pro-Zionist bias on Talk:Zionist terrorism here and here. Paradoxically, I was being accused of great pro-Palestinian bias in Talk:Israeli terrorism that same day. Good times! I still think (hope) GN can come around though. El_C 07:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Architecture of Btrieve[edit]

Nice diagram - you got my support just before it drops off the bottom of the FAC page! CheekyMonkey 12:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FAC: W. Mark Felt[edit]

I nominated W. Mark Felt as a WP:FAC. As you commented on the article's talk page, I'd appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt/archive1. I did receive your note message. But I'd still prefer someone who knew what they were doing add the notes. I've stated this on the FAC page and hopefully a Samaritan will help. PedanticallySpeaking 15:06, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)


Hey! It's been a month since your previous request for adminship. Are you willing to accept a nomination? I'd be honored to nominate you, although I'll take no offense if you choose someone else (or nominate yourself)—I'm sure there are many who would wish to do so. — Knowledge Seeker 00:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. I was about to suggest the same thing. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:13, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

You're up! I wasn't sure what to call it, so I called it Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ta bu shi da yu2. Good luck! — Knowledge Seeker 08:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Read, and don't lie[edit]

As I said, the original material came from Sperm Whale and Gray Whale, and I wrote it. You split it off, and very greatly expanded it. I do not pretend to have written anything but a small fraction of the material there now, but nevertheless I am not happy that that page has become a standing joke in Wikipedia, thanks in no small part to your posturing. Pcb21| Pete 07:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't. Having just moved from Kuro5hin to Wikipedia, I was interested in seeing what this website was capable of doing. I had known about the exploding whale article from years ago, when I downloaded the movie via my 56K modem and showed it to my brother. After we finished rolling around the floor laughing, we didn't think much of it. As I found the topic to be interesting, but somewhat obscure, I wrote the article as my first fully fledged "featured article". Initially I didn't think much of it, but then I discovered WP:FAC. For a while I didn't think that it would be good enough to put it there, but then one day curiousity got the better of me and I submitted it to the queue. I addressed all the concerns (and nearly bit poor Deni's head off - my first bit of wikistress, and quite unfair to Deni, might I say) and properly referenced the article. Then it got to FA status. Then, to my suprise, it got to the main page... the rest is history. For the record, I never used any of the material from sperm whale or gray whale, though I think I added a wikilink to one of the articles. I suppose I might have noted that it was a gray whale from that article - I can't remember. Anyway, suffice to say that, though both the articles referred to by Pcb21 are very good (though I haven't done more than skim read them), I definitely didn't use them. I already knew about the exploding whale through other means. It is, after all, a fairly well known Internet meme. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Theo RFA[edit]

Keeping it cool

Hi snowflake: 100% support, eh? I am touched and honoured by your confidence. I would say 'warmed' but I think that I should keep things cool in here.

Theo (Talk) 13:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And now I find that there is a User:Sn0wflake. Odd!—Theo (Talk) 14:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Convention on Psychotropic Substances[edit]

Okay, the new and improved article is up for FAC. Philadelphia, LA 22:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ta bu shi da yu 3, OMWF[edit]

My dear horned vandaliser of insanity (thanks for that, by the way, it gave me a chance to clean up the article), would you be so kind of at least indicating right now (relatively speaking) on whether you accept or decline your (umpteenth) RfA? The votes are rolling in, you're clearly aware of the thing, and people are getting nervous about having a vote when it's not even clear what the candidate wants. It could also give off the impression that you're testing the waters before committing, which doesn't look very confident either. JRM · Talk 23:11, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Your POV[edit]

Are you kidding? Grace Note 02:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry you feel that the world is against you. You're a good guy and I'm sure you're working for the good. But you have a clear religious POV, which I believe (with the full understanding that I might be wrong) does not allow you to approach articles on particular subjects as neutrally as is desirable. I am not going to provide reams of evidence, so don't ask me to. This is my impression of you as an editor. In particular, I believe you would add a lot more to Wikipedia if you stayed clear of articles where you're liable to be upset by the disputes. Your idea on Jihad was not particularly constructive in my view. The editors who are abusing each other might be unsightly, but your upset is easily resolved by your simply not editing an article that I think you probably know nothing much about. I know you're trying to help but you'd surely be better off not getting involved in that instance.

I was also alarmed by your attitude over Enviroknot's user page. You should not encourage admins to overreach themselves. An admin is just another editor. It's no big deal that they have a couple of extra buttons. They certainly should not be prompted to use those buttons to resolve disputes with other editors, nor should they be led to believe that they are "above the law". We are all working together, or at least one hopes so, towards the same aim.

Having said that, I think you're a productive and good editor, Ta bu. Your contributions have been positive and even your big black mark was just a bit of fun, which was taken way too seriously. It could and should just have been laughed off. Grace Note 02:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't call Kapil a "cunt". I'm just quoting him. Don't fret. He's just shitstirring. He is a rightwing troll. He's not trying to add anything of substance to WP, just pushing a particular POV, and being spectactularly offensive in doing so, in the hope of driving off decent editors. I refuse to take people like that seriously. Grace Note 02:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, you don't understand what I'm saying. I don't think he's just pushing a POV and that needs to be countered. I don't think there are any "issues" at stake. I think he's just trying to disrupt the place. If I bother talking to him, it's just to spank his sorry butt. Kapil thinks he can bully other editors because they're all trying to be polite. Now he has someone who is giving it back, he's whining to the nearest admin and trying to game the system. It's what trolls do, man. Don't fret about it. It's not as though it's ongoing. I barely even bother with the little turd. Yes, it's not edifying. Yes, it's not even constructive, but it makes me feel good about the time I waste here. By getting involved, you simply waste your time and energy, which you could put to good use elsewhere. Suggesting to other editors that they start RfCs on each other is just stirring the pot, by the way. You want to avoid doing that. People like Kapil don't need encouraging. They're like sinks for energy and time.

I don't mind being called a lefty pinko, by the way, or any other name. I have a tough hide and it's all sticks and stones so far as I'm concerned. Pretending to be offended would be ridiculous. Half the community here spends its days pretending to be outraged by the other half. None of it does a thing to construct an encyclopaedia. Grace Note 03:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lighten up, man. "Liable"! Don't take the legalism so seriously. It's nonsense. Let's stick to building a great encyclopaedia -- that is, after all, what our aim is, isn't it? Grace Note 03:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Wow![edit]

I just happened to be patrolling around Special:Newpages at the moment :) I've come across your work before and I was keen to see what new things you had to write. Happy editing. Enochlau 05:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Hey, TBSDY, just wanted to make sure you saw Mike H's comment about wishing to speak to you on IRC, since it's easy to miss a comment here or there on a highly active RFA. — Knowledge Seeker 06:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NT5 registry shots[edit]

The pictures illustrate far better than the words; you're quite welcome. —Kbolino 08:03, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

{{Sydney suburb stub}} and categories.[edit]

Hello Ta bu shi da yu,

I see you added Category:Stubs to the previously category-less {{Sydney suburb stub}} earlier today. Since it makes little sense to put sorted stubs in the unsorted category, I wanted to put a proper topical category on it (Category:Sydney suburb stubs), only to see that this category once existed and was speedied twice by you in September 2004. Now, I'm hesitating because I would like to know the history of this before recreating it. Is there still some reason against reinstating that category? I commented out the category in the template for now. -- grm_wnr Esc 13:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Admin, part three.[edit]

Hey, there! WELCOME BACK! I'm off my Wikivacation and, it seems, just in time. I got to vote for you. Again. Third time now.  :) May your whales, sheep and assorted livestock ever boom. Make that adminship stick this time, ya hear? I'm gonna give you a cyber-noogie if you ever drop out of here again. - Lucky 6.9 15:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ed has been kind enough to nominate me for an adminship[edit]

...which I think will go a long way toward resolving unproductive disputes on pages he and I both edit. Anyone who is interested in voting one way or the other is invited to the discussion here. BrandonYusufToropov 17:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Policy enforcement[edit]

Stop me if you really I think I'm going overboard with this. But think it through and give it time to gel, otherwise. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 01:50, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

RfA for Sn0wflake[edit]

Thank you for your comments and for the... hm... two votes. :) You must have gotten slightly distracted and voted twice on me. You might or might not want to remove a vote, since one is going to be discounted anyway... actually, I don't really mind. :P Cheers and congratulations on becoming an admin once more. --Sn0wflake 03:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Tabs, are you still around and wanting to edit that locked page? SlimVirgin (talk) 07:53, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

See if you have time. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:55, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind[edit]

Thank you. I appreciate it. --Admiral Roo 10:26, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

You are leaving?[edit]

Please no! I just hope this is a wikibreak... Ta bu shi da yu 04:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I serriously considered leaving. Infact I was gone for 15 days plus. Later decided to make it a temprorary wiki vacation. Its an extended vacation untill I resolve some issues with the two users who "mercilessly" revert stalk my edits. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Glad to see that things are sorted :-) Ta bu shi da yu 23:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Things arent quite sorted yet. I still recieve my revert stalking experience. I am less inclined to edit at the moment. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

W2K: Preemption vs. Interruption[edit]

Sorry, brainfart; I forgot the difference between the two.—Kbolino 06:02, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Captain Marvel (DC Comics), DC vs. Fawcett[edit]

Were you able to find a link any of the actual case documents? I'd be interested to read it (I actually did find it once, in my hometown's college library. Boy, was it a lot of litigation!) --FuriousFreddy 10:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A redirect[edit]

Hi. Rad Racer recently created TBSDY, then a redirect to your user page. It was then modified to become a redirect to your talk page by an anon. It's on RFD; just thought you should know. Cheers, smoddy 10:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


This user is starting to be a big pain on Talk:Libertarianism. Original research, personal attacks, and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Possibly also 3RR violations. I've never made a request for arbitration before. Is this what you recommend?

Thanks in advance, and thanks for all your good work on Wikipedia Dave (talk) 19:00, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know the procedure. I'll see what works. Dave (talk) 00:48, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Nix v. Hedden[edit]

Hey. Saw your post on the talk page of the SCOTUS page; I can expand the article, but I wanted to ask what specifically you thought should be addressed / corrected. Cheers, RidG (talk) 20:30, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

China's Human Rights Record of the United States[edit]

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I've merged your article on China's assessment of the human rights record of the United States with China's Human Rights Record of the United States, and credited you for the content on its talk page. Please have a look. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 00:12, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

u win sir[edit]

simply: well done for (almsot) perfect support. You may well set a record on support. This is deserved, maiilny (for me) a cause de ton huneur. Who cares if u "vanalised" a Dr. Qui page nehow? --Expurgator t(c)


Coolcat believes that Davenbelle and Stereotek are stalking him. As far as I can tell, it began on Armenian Genocide and spread to the PKK-related pages. Coolcat believes that these pieces tend to have an anti-Turkish POV. Coolcat says that they then followed him to other pages, got his GAP Project page deleted as a copyvio (the fallout from that was what caused RickK to leave)... He tried to place an RFC but it didn't get enough support and was deleted. You should talk to Tony Sidaway about it - I think he has tried to mediate. Anyway, the whole affair led Coolcat to quit (or at least restrict his editing to his user space), saying he couldn't edit without having everything he he wrote reverted. He posted a somewhat nasty ("go screw yourself") message on his talk page to the two of them - which resulted in an edit war, since they were deleting it as "personal attacks". I believe it came up as a 3RR violation, but iirc no-one acted on it - people opined that you are allowed to remove personal attacks, and you are allowed to revert your user space as often as you like. I like Coolcat even if I probably have more in common politically with his adversaries. I didn't follow the whole fight, but I found that, as far as it boiled over into places I am aware of, the others were more more incivil than Coolcat was. Perhaps the greatest misfortune of the whole affair was that it drove RickK out - not something you can blame on either Coolcat or Davenbelle & Stereotek, but nonetheless, a consequence of a dispute that spilled over from one page into the whole of Wikipedia. Guettarda 01:05, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, Coolcat searched troubles himself. The guy under the banner of neutrality wanted first to moderate the Armenian Genocide article, but under this banner deleted and edited the entry. The guy thought that by claiming to be a neutral third party he'll be more credible, since he will hide the fact that he is an ultra nationalist Turk. Which of course he denies. He called the Armenians with a term used by Turks, he called the Ottoman turks as his ancestors, he brought news that one can only find from Turkish newspapers, he corrected words by replacing them with their Turkish character. I don't give a thing that my adversary is a Turk, French, English etc., the only thing I request as a contributor is a little bit of honesty. I don't hide my ethnicity here, because I believe this is irrelevant, people should make judgment based on what people write and not their social construct(ethnicity). What really made things worst, is that the same Coolcat that claimed not knowing much regarding the topic, when asked him to leave people that know about it to add informations, he claimed that finally he has lied that in fact he knows more than he has claimed to know.
It was always very difficult to communicate with this guy. After editing the genocide entry, I couldn't start footnoting, because I was always in the constant fear that all my article will be reverted back. But this is not only where it stops, Coolcat had lunched a war on trying to hijack any references to the Armenian genocide in many other entries, like Genocide in history, in which I was even not involved, like he did in another entry about Holocausts, and some others... How could it be possible to even discuss with this guy? He'll goal is to transform Wikipedia into a Turkish government political information site in everything that involve directly or indirectly Turkey.
He was the one deciding to get in trouble, when he started editing the Armenian Genocide entry without any justification at the talk page, and he decided to throw mud on me by making charges regarding me on other peoples talk pages, people that knew him, and since I was a newbie at Wikipedia, they took what he had to say as granted.
The thing got to the mediation process, and Coolcat seemed to not want to even participate on it, it even got to the Arbitration committee, and was rejected, for a reason that I ignore, because I have witnessed cases approved for less than this. The two users that are after Coolcat, I knew about them from the Armenian Genocide entry, one of them took the charge of neutralizing the entry.
Everytime people got against Coolcats edits and deleting, he'll cry back telling that he will leave Wikipedia and never come back, he did that countless numbers of times, he even wanted people to vote regarding wherever or not he should leave... Of course, this is not the only thing he used his user page for. Since he used it as well to make charges against me and the others, as well as placing an hierarchy of members, and as people would guess, I was on the not so good peoples list. Fadix 28 June 2005 16:33 (UTC)


Tabs, the USSC's writ does not run outside the US. As you must be knowing P2P networks are decentralised. While it may be banned in the USSC has no jurisdiction to prevent it from springing outside its territory. Andy why do USSC decisions always pop up on the news, in other words, other countries' rulings are not important? =Nichalp «Talk»=

If you can frame it otherwise to show the global implications, I'll revert. =Nichalp «Talk»= June 28, 2005 07:04 (UTC)
Just provide me a draft, something like "Software companies fear that... due to the USSC ruling". I'll put up a modified version. The current text on the case is not helpful: could be sued for contributory copyright infringement for marketing file sharing software. and Software companies feared that a ruling against Grokster would stifle innovation. The focus should be on the software companies not the USSC. =Nichalp «Talk»= June 28, 2005 07:17 (UTC)
I know you're from West Australia. I'm opposing it because in its current draft its scope says only P2P networks can be hauled up. ie. Only companies that are based/trade in US can be hauled up. A German, Indian, Australian or South African company cannot be hauled up. I'll clarify my draft if it has to be put up:

"Major software companies fear that the US Supreme Court ruling that P2P companies can be held accountable for copyright infringement could stifle stifle innovation."

I've focussed on the s/w companies. =Nichalp «Talk»= June 28, 2005 07:33 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. I've always been opposed to specific country articles on the ITN, if it does not have global ramifications. NY Times (small mention), BBC World (small mention), CNN (no mention on front page) does not paint an important picture on the case. It should be top news worldwide to warrant its inclusion. =Nichalp «Talk»= June 28, 2005 07:48 (UTC)

I did not see it, but I would have opposed that too. There was another USSC case about a month ago which was also removed (I don't know by who). Last June I was involved in a big debate on topics of specific interests on INT. Thankfully ever since then, there have been very few articles of US- or UK-specific topics. I'd also removed an article on the death of a UK politician earlier this month. =Nichalp «Talk»= June 28, 2005 07:55 (UTC)
It will be quoted no doubt, but there are many other articles from the US that are also quoted. FWIW the SC ruling on Ten Commandments could be justified citing today's ruling as a precedance. Now this certainly cannot go on. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= June 28, 2005 08:06 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you meant by the last post, but I've got to go for lunch, so will catch up later. =Nichalp «Talk»= June 28, 2005 08:13 (UTC)

Congrats on you becoming an admin. =Nichalp «Talk»= June 28, 2005 09:03 (UTC)


You're an admin. Again. Finally. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 28 June 2005 08:22 (UTC)

Good to have you back, Tabs!! SlimVirgin (talk) June 28, 2005 08:57 (UTC)
Congrats, Tabu. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) June 28, 2005 09:05 (UTC)
Ah.. rollback button... page protect link... how I love thee! Delete... your siren call is so attractive, yet so deadly (especially on images)! Thanks all :-) Ta bu shi da yu 28 June 2005 09:08 (UTC)
Now you can finally edit Wikipedia:policy enforcement log. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 02:36 (UTC)
Hey. My cunning plan revealed! - Ta bu shi da yu 1 July 2005 02:39 (UTC)

Congratulations, man. Wow—what a turnout! — Knowledge Seeker 28 June 2005 11:23 (UTC)

Congratulations, little fish! And congrats for making it into the record books too. Maybe now it's time to remove your "TBSDY has left the building" message and replace it with your shiny new oddball barnstar! Who are you kidding, anyway? --Deathphoenix 28 June 2005 12:54 (UTC)

Congratulations Ta bu shi... you deserved it! :) Squash 29 June 2005 09:58 (UTC)

Even tough I am a bit late now, I still would like to congratulate you on adminship. It's the last suit you'll ever wear ... again. Also, I am not sure this fits here, but I found you an article about exploding humans. Happy editing (and rolling back, protecting, and deleting) -- Chris 73 Talk June 30, 2005 07:37 (UTC)
I'm even later than Chris 73 was, but I too would like to congratulate you on your re-adminship. I voted against you in your first readminship request, but had I been around to do so (I was by the side of a loch in Soctland with no Internet access)I would happily have votted to support this time. Thryduulf 30 June 2005 15:51 (UTC)

I'm the latest yet, but congratulations on your re-adminship. That's the third time I've voted for you, don't make me do it again! :-P Jayjg (talk) 30 June 2005 17:17 (UTC)

Hey, very good, cheers! I wasn't in any doubt, but thought to check all the same. Welcome back. Fire Star 1 July 2005 05:03 (UTC)

Benedict XVI[edit]

  1. Comment: suggest anon assasinates the Pope in order to speed up the completion of the article as a current event. The only issue I see here is that the act of assasination itself could be seen as introducing original research into the article. HTH. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He'd better watch out for the Swiss Guards, though. I hear they don't take too kindly to that type of thing. --MikeJ9919 28 June 2005 18:25 (UTC)

RE: Your assistance on Armenian Genocide is requested[edit]

I will answer the points you raised as soon as possible. Fadix 28 June 2005 19:17 (UTC)


[10] - OK, I admit it took me a solid 30 seconds to get the joke, but I laughed *very* hard after I got it. →Raul654 June 29, 2005 08:19 (UTC)

I gave up after 10 seconds and later went back after seeing this comment. Great joke, Ta Bu. We should preserve it for posterity! -- Sundar \talk \contribs June 29, 2005 08:23 (UTC)
Nice one :D =Nichalp «Talk»= July 2, 2005 15:27 (UTC)

Hubble Space Telescope[edit]

Hi TBSDY, thanks for your comments on Hubble's FAC and your message. I've been pondering the referencing issue before going ahead and changing things - I have to say I'm not massively keen on separate notes and references sections - wouldn't it mean you have to click twice to find the source of the info rather than just once? All my previous articles have been nice simple one reference for each paragraph sort of jobs, without multiple citations from the same reference, so I've never done it like your suggestion before and I'm not too clear about how it would work. Can you point me to an example of the system in action? Cheers, Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:20 (UTC)


I'm tempting to nominate [11] for a WikiClassic for best edit summary :) (note, link won't work next time ITN is updated, dammit...)--Kiand 29 June 2005 13:02 (UTC)

My attention was called to this most pressing matter...[edit]


Ha ha. :p --Slowking Man June 29, 2005 17:21 (UTC)


No offense, but when an article is placed on VfD three times, and each time it was not deleted, I think you should not resubmit the article to VfD. Noone forced any of the editors to vote support. - Ta bu shi da yu

  • I appreciate your comments on the talk page of the GNAA Vfd. I would prefer them to stay on that discussion page, as you stated "no offense", but then go on to talk about what you stated on the discussion. I did take the time to read the entire Vfd, I also was brought it up as a discussion on the topic and not a new Vfd. I stated my reasoning in a civilized manner, and even clarified on not suggesting that the prior three were invalid. I therefore do not appreciate the tone you seemed to have both on that discussion page and my talk page. If you feel strongly about this topic, I do not intend to desuade your thoughts on it what so ever, but give me the benefit of the doubt, that I have reviewed all the material, and want to further dicuss the process. If myself, or any other Wikipedian, as I stated on the discussion page, wants to discuss the process or the policy of Wikipedia, it should not be frowned upon, much less "barked at", as I feel you did on my talk page. I do not mean any disrespect, and only want to point out the fact that I wish to have a discussion on the previous Vfd's in a civil manner. Thank you. <>Who?¿? 30 June 2005 03:53 (UTC)


Actually I fealt really bad about replying, to be quite honest, I was about to ignore it when I remembered you were an administrator, this unfortunately bothered me a bit, as a normal user I would have just assumed they didnt understand the entire thing. I especially hope that my comments were not to harsh. Although, being an admin, I would have not expected it, at the same time, the fact that you are, you deal with a lot of users who do not take the time to examine or understand topics. I wanted to mostly just emphacize my point that I wanted to discuss everything, and not "bite back" I hope that if I did offend,that you also accept my appology. I understand yours and other feelings on this matter, and wish to further the discussion and perception of it. (hopefully not confusing, a bit tired) Thanks. <>Who?¿? 30 June 2005 04:59 (UTC)

Moving along[edit]

I am back, will be gone in less than a week. Busy "summer". You know how it goes. For me its just a warm winter :(. Anyways I filled a RfC regarding, I got some responses, Most notably Silsors and Tony Sideaways comments are visible. RfC case was deleted, you may be able to dig it from the deleted articles. I welcome any aid to resolve my isses regarding Davenbelle and Stereotek. I am not editing wikipedia untill its resolved, as they revert regardlesly and butcher all my work. Thats pretty much all their "contribution". I edit a page, they appear. I place an article for VfD, they vote against it. They dont use Talk pages, they don't use any compunication to talk with me. They simply revert. Algebraticaly I win any and every revert war with one other user on a 3rr basis, however because they get 6 its rather futile. They can revert war for rather ridiclous reasons such as image sizes. From my perspective they exist to bother me. --Cool Cat My Talk 30 June 2005 23:39 (UTC)

Users were active on Armenian Genocide article which User:Fadix basicaly owns. The arhives will point out in talk page the discussion was mostly revolving around me rather than the topic. Tony Sideaway and me have one thing in common, we were both declared revisionists. I am not too concerned about that spesific article at the moment however will once I solve the issues I am dealing with. --Cool Cat My Talk 30 June 2005 23:39 (UTC)

I am considering a second RfC case. However if I can get this solved w/o an RfC it works for me. For me this is a very serrious problem. --Cool Cat My Talk 30 June 2005 23:39 (UTC)

Stop making false charges, don't you have enought? How do I own the genocide entry? Was it not "I" that asked mediation, which you basically ignored? It is also funny that you say that the other users don't use the talk page. Was it not you that was entirly deleting and editing without even saying anything at the talk page? And how was Tony considered as a revisionist? How come? Don't you find it weird that I had good relations with Yce, and even a better relation to the other that was believe to be your new alias? How come you were the only treated this way? Fill anything you want, fill even an Arbcom. You were the one not respecting Wikipedia rules, you were the one using your userpage to slander me, you were the one ignoring mediation, you were the one wanting to impose your politically motivated views, you were the one lying to members. Actually I am confident that Ta bu shi da yu will realise all by himself that I am not what you picture me to be. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:58 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Starfleet ranks and insignia[edit]

The article has been improved drasticaly, I think this is a good enough reason to reopen the FA status of this article. To be fair I am notifying all parties involved with the article on old candidacy. If I forgot one of you, its not intentional. Thats all for now --Cool Cat My Talk 1 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)

Books of the Bible[edit]

Greetings. Sure, I'm game! Fire Star 1 July 2005 05:29 (UTC)

RFA and User:chocolateboy[edit]

Hello. I have filed an Request for Arbitration against chocolateboy regarding my experience with him on Talk:Ann Coulter. If you care to add a statement to my request (regarding your recent experience perhaps :)) please be my guest. --Ben 1 July 2005 08:55 (UTC)

Your new user page[edit]

That's a nice picture. You weren't kidding anyone. ;-) Long live the emperor, and his new clothes too! --Deathphoenix 1 July 2005 13:51 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide[edit]

Heya Tony, do you have knowledge of this topic? I have listed a bunch of concerns to the talk page. Are you able to assist? - Ta bu shi da yu 1 July 2005 01:37 (UTC)

Unfortunately my actual knowledge of the events is somewhat sparse, and interacting with partisans on either side who are attracted to that article is extremely unpleasant. I wish you good luck. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 1 July 2005 21:14 (UTC)
Ta bu shi da yu, the Armenian Genocide entry, as I already admitted need a lot of work, this is the reason why I did not start footnoting. If you read my basic answer, you'll see that many of your critics are not texts added by me, and this explain why footnoting in an early stages would be a waste of energy, when the article is in constant changes. This was why I have asked both Thoth and Yce, one is half Armenian, and the other a Turk to make propositions and present them in the talk page. The genocide talk page is open to anyone, unlike what Coolcat want to suggest, but I am entirly against Coolcat participating that is fruitless. What Coolcat wanted to impose there was against the Neutral Point of View. He has shouted his moderating template and requested 50-50 coverage and presenting two positions as equally valid. He was dishonest and had gone even as far as asking the author of a racist website for collaboration to answer me, which result was the authors regurgitation at pages a;ready archivated. Coolcat as well has archivated my answers addressed to him hours after they were posted, which was against the notion of archives, to kick them out of sight. I requested mediators myself, and if you want to give opinions and propositions as an uninvolved party, that is all fine by me. I could perhaps request as well that you could comment on my two created articles, I need comments from an uninterested party, while they need a lot of work, I think they are closer to a final version than the genocide entry is and I need comments to make them better. While before I was against any major changes of the Armenian Genocide article, there has been at least one uninvolved party that claimed that it need changes, and since Thoth continuisly requested changes, I think that finally a finaly working version should be presented. Fadix 2 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)
I was not talking about a working version of the Armenian Genocide entry, but rather the two articles I have created(see my user page "Article I have created"). Those two articles are closly linked with the central Armenian Genocide entry, and I really need comments on how to modify them, since they seem too technical, only one person has criticized(at least the first, because the second is new)it. As for debating, I will have no problem apologizing to Coolcat for having been harsh with him, that I have not denied, neither denied having accused him. I will have no problem as well apologizing for accusing him to use another alias. But this is probably it. I don't think he should participate in the discussion, Raffi, Thoth and some others don't want him, including me. I'd rather debate with Torque, an exposed racist, than him. And why would he even want to debate in the first place, since he has nothing to contribute in the advancement of the article, and this even Tony himself admitted it, if my memory doesn't fail me. The guy want deletion of informations, like the fact that most Western historians do believe the "destruction" theses, because he consider that arguments like this would convince people that the event did happen. This is like wanting to edit Natural Selection entry, without mentioning that most scientists support this theses, just because it would somehow convince people that our existance we own it to natural selection. There are many such examples of things Coolcat is after, and he want them to be imposed, he tried with his mediation template that he imposed by ignoring that no one wanted it etc. etc. and etc. Fadix 2 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)
The thing with the article, is that I have no idea what the final working version will be. Thoth absolutly want to edit it, and want to present the genocide as an absolute reality, which I oppose since it is not NPOV. So what I have basically proposed is for him to merge what is already in the article(the reason for me to wanting this is maily because the English grammar need to be improved greatly), and I will try neutralizing it, and then, Yce(a Turkish member), would propose what he want, so that we can work further, so it could be neutralised even more. I am thinking for some times to keep only the main text(introduction), and move the rest to the talk page. The things I have added I will endorse them, but not what I did not, even if I can agree with some of them, I can not be held responsable of the entire article when there are many parts, which I did not write. The timeline is a major example, if it continue like this and that people start adding every insignificant news, soon it will eat over half of the article. BTW, I did quickly address your questions on the talk page, this is a basic and quick answer, because those days I have limited time, and it will be the same for the comming weeks, but I will try to bring more references than what I did answer, each time I have time to do so. Just be informed that the footnoting process was halted on the fear of constant revert in the past, so I have waited until the situation stablise, and until I had worked on the two other articles, because they are much more technical, and for this reason few "Googlers" that visit revisionist website won't find in those sites such technical stuff to spam Wikipedia and force me into a revert war. BTW: I should play few loteries, you posted your answer at my talk page few minutes after I have opened my computer and visited Wikipedia. :) Fadix 2 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)

Fadix and me[edit]

My impression with fadix is that he is a wall. When I was trying discussing the material, him and several others started discussing me how horrible I am. Fadix declared Tonly Sideaway and me as revisionsits. He did not allow any edits, including spelling corrections by me at a point. If he changed thats good. I wish you luck. I may jump in the convo as the opposing view, "the denialist". Come to think of it sounds like a movie title. --Cool Cat My Talk 2 July 2005 21:29 (UTC)

Simply speaking, you are lying; and this answer is just another example on why you get many people in your back. I did not accuse Tony of being a revisionist, the closer I came to, is when I answered him because of the locking of the article on a version edited by someone that just appeared to make the edits you were after. He himself admitted that version was not a good one. And yes! I did not allow you making any edits, and I still believe you should not touch the genocide articles(any genocide and war crime articles, because you will just edit them to claim that you don't do this only with the Armenian cases), beside, there are three Turks there, and no one is blocking them to participate in a NPOV way. It simply is that you still can not comprehend what is POV and no-POV. articles are not about what is the truth or not, it is not to Wikipedia to decide what is. Articles are about presenting the [different] positions regarding subjects. That's all. You were always after trying to delete informations, like who believes what, and still you request this. For this reason, and many others, I requested that you do not touch that entry. And this only stick with you, and not the other Turks. And here, I was not the only one doing that, Thoth and Raffi were much more harsh kicking you out than I was. Let just say to yourself, that you were lucky that the arbitration cases was rejected. Oh and about the two users that are after you. They are patrolers, and I believe that patrolers are really needed in Wikipedia, and they SHOULD fallow people that their behavor they question. I have nothing to hide, and I will accept anyone going after me, if they sense any bad faith. And do realise here, that arguments like: "they're always after me" doesn't make what they do, against Wikipedia rules. Fadix 2 July 2005 22:11 (UTC)

I take that back fadix wont allow me to edit the article as he mentioned above. He tends to jump into peoples conversations like this. He acts as if he is Arbcom. I cannot contribute untill you can break this attitude. --Cool Cat My Talk 3 July 2005 06:39 (UTC)

Talking about bad faith... --Cool Cat My Talk 3 July 2005 06:39 (UTC)


Hey, I hope you're not giving up on libertarianism entirely, though I can't say I'd blame you at this point. I thought you'd be interested in this article, which is tangentially related to Nix v. Hedden and is also quite funny. Marvel Comics sought a ruling that the X-Men were "nonhuman creatures" because it was cheaper to import the action figures under U.S. Tariff law at the time. But the comics themselves promote the idea that the X-Men are human, so it pissed off the fans. Probably not too encyclopedia-worthy, but quite funny, especially the line about the judge feeling "the need to remove the clothes" of some of the action figures.

I thought you'd want to see this. It seems right up your alley. Dave (talk) July 3, 2005 20:09 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. It's so refreshing to have reasonable disputes instead of unreasonable ones. Let me know what you think of the article I linked to above :-). Dave (talk) July 5, 2005 00:05 (UTC)

History of Cape Colony from 1806 to 1870[edit]

Hello there. You may not remember, but about a million years ago you voted support for the FAC page of History of Cape Colony from 1806 to 1870. Someone has now listed that on the Featured Article Removal Candidate page, for reasons I think are slightly bogus. Would you mind looking over and giving your opinion here? Thanks! Páll 4 July 2005 04:54 (UTC)

I know you're busy, but ...[edit]

Could you please take a look at the ongoing dispute at Sahaba? Many thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 4 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)

Re: Template:TOCright[edit]

You wrote: Just in case you haven't seen it, have a look at the revision of W. Mark Felt. Also recommend you look at Daniel Pipes. And (sorry to keep posting here), see Windows 2000 with the template.

Well, the Windows one doesn't work because the infobox is above the TOC, rather than the other way round. I agree about the others though - they look really good! Even more reason to keep the template. Grutness...wha? 5 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

Look, no offense... but why should a change like this be applied that is not in the stylesheet? I think it looks godawful - can I change this in my stylesheet? What about the standard practice of having the image on the right hand side of the screen - a standard design principle (look at any advertisment)?

The feeling's mutual as to the respect, but I see nothing wrong with this. As to standard advertising practice, what of articles that have no lead picture but have nmany sections? It looks far better to have the contents where they are most logical (again, the main reason for the advertising practice is not so much to have the picture on the right as to have the main text body at top left - the first place the eyes tend to look for words), and certainly we don't need tons of white space at the top of the page. It doesn't work with all articles - it may not work with more than a small minority - but it is a useful option to have. I've tried it on my user talk page, and it clearly doesn't work there, but consider a page like List_of_volcanoes - imagine how that would look without some form of floating right-hand TOC. Grutness...wha?

Bingo. You said it yourself - the eyes look to the left for text. With TOCright, the image will be on the left...OK, have had a look at List of volcanoes and agree that it does look better there. However, what about articles that are not lists? Articles that have such a large TOC need to be shortened and split up into subarticles anyway.

Okay, well two things here - first, the eyes do look to the left for text, which is why having the main body of the text start on the left is preferable to having a table of any sort there. As for "what about articles that are not lists:, well, some of them would work better with the TOC on the right, too. As I said earlier, I'm not suggesting it becomes compulsory, simply that it be retained as an option for the minority of cases where it does look better floating to the right. I think maybe this time we're just going to have to agree to disagree... Grutness...wha? 5 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)

I think your recent edit of Intelligent design using TOCright, but tnot at the top of the aeticle, is an improvement over both the previous version using TOCright, and the version that did not use it. DES 5 July 2005 04:01 (UTC)

I agreed. BTW, for another good example, check out Terri Schiavo. Talk about a complex topic.....--ghost 5 July 2005 05:46 (UTC)
Oh, and don't let the bastards grind you down.--ghost 5 July 2005 05:49 (UTC)
LOL, np. We're all here to help. But it's easy to forget that sometimes.--ghost 5 July 2005 14:10 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:Alfrem[edit]

Your statement was apparently misplaced as the statement from "Party 1" rather than "Party 2". I moved it. --Malathion 7 July 2005 09:09 (UTC)


any chance you could help out on the Wikinews article too? Linked to from the WP article Dan100 (Talk) July 7, 2005 10:18 (UTC)

Hi, Ta. Excellent work on the London bombings article, but I do have to disagree with you on the deletion of the cache-purging option and the 'edit intro' link. They were taken out because they were 'not appropriate', and I was unable to find a further reason provided for it. Well, I've went and restored both, because the article is still at a highly chaotic stage and both are extremely useful tools in working on it, especially the second, placed there to help minimize edit conflicts. I've restored 'em, if you disagree, tell why and should your wiki-fu prove stronger than my wiki-fu I shall yield. -- Kizor 7 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)

Gay Nigger Association of America VFD[edit]

Can we add a section for Redirect? Several votes in the past called for the article to be redirected to Slashdot trolling phenomena. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 8 July 2005 03:29 (UTC)

A friendly...[edit]

Just a friendly message - if you're administering the vote, and not voting, should you be adding your own commentary on others' votes? [13] Fuzheado | Talk 8 July 2005 04:56 (UTC)

GNAA deletion[edit]

Hi! You might want to note that you are trying to get the article up to FA status (I assume that's the reason you're holding the vote). That should help keep people from complaining about "abuse of admin powers", as several voters are doing. Just a thought. --Scimitar 8 July 2005 20:04 (UTC)

Just browsing through this talk page, and I didn't know what you meant by 'FA status'. What does this mean? DarthVader 08:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I think it means Featured Article status, if I'm not mistaken. NickBush24 08:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Correct. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


To my knowledge, folks involved with GNAA are not necessarily gay or black, but perhaps you know more than I do. Fuzheado | Talk 9 July 2005 02:23 (UTC)

GNAA FAC[edit]

Hey, I noticed that page was set up. I asked the admins to close it, but the annon accuses me of being an anti-Semite (ironic, since the annon calls himself Dr. Pig H. Jewgasser). Any help you can provide will be rewarded in due time. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 07:03 (UTC)

proposals and amendments[edit]

Replied on my talk page. —Charles P. (Mirv) 9 July 2005 14:43 (UTC)

What Mirv wrote:

How it is done? Generally one or two users, and sometimes a few more, set up a page in the Wikipedia namespace outlining the proposal. They set a short period for discussion, a week or two, and jealously guard the text from edits by anyone else. At the end of the discussion period, it's put to a vote, which is generally polarized and inconclusive. The proposal is categorized as a historical page or a rejected policy and forgotten about. Occasionally one of the originators will return months later and decide that despite the lack of support in the vote, it's a policy (or a "semi-policy") anyway.

That's how it often is done, as I see it. If you want advice on how it should be done, then here's what I suggest:

For this proposal, I would suggest waiting until Tim Starling finishes work on Wikipedia:Per-article blocking. I doubt that punishing one personal attack on the talk page of a controversial topic with a summary block from all editing will gain enough support; I think that blocks only from editing the talk page and the article will prove much more palatable. —Charles P. (Mirv) 9 July 2005 14:43 (UTC)


The debate about where to put the libertarianism article has essentially stopped (it's been about four days since someone has commented on it). I was wondering what the best course of action is. The few ideas that occurred to me are:

  1. Leave the tag for another few days and see what happens
  2. Remove the tag since no one has disputed it since July 4.
  3. Put it up for some kind of vote and settle the issue once and for all (the issue actually predates my association with Wikipedia)

I was wondering what you thought would be best: do any of those sound like good ideas to you? Does something else sound better?

Thanks, Dave (talk) July 9, 2005 17:53 (UTC)

Disruptive GNAA VFD[edit]

Hi Ta bu shi da yu, It is clear that your intentions with the GNAA VFD are good, but by putting the article up again and unilaterally creating a whole new family of voting rules just for this VFD, you are in effect disrupting Wikipedia. I appreciate being bold, but setting new policy and declaring new actions for 'only admins' is not the best place to be bold. In the future I hope you can find more cooperative ways to suggest policy. I'd also like to point out that a lack of 'direct participation' in the form of a vote does not due much to indicate that a user is unbiased in their handling of an issue, for example your participation in prior VFDs of GNAA would justify questions about your objectivity. I see you've previously voted to keep, and I think your new rules mostly favor delete, but that doesn't excuse the abuse of process. Gmaxwell 20:59, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Pretty much, because of this, I think the VFD is, once again, FUBAR. We need some help, big time, to solve this issue. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Well I'm not going to go into the admins making new policies, etc, but I think that Ta bu shi da yu is doing a great job with the whole VFD. The 100 edits policy is very good and it will hopefully prevent problems with sockpuppets. I think that this vote is fairer than previous votes. Although this policy may not often be used, it will be more effective. Keep up the great work Ta bu shi da yu. DarthVader 08:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

GNAA with Who[edit]

Ooh a test case, I knew that discussion was worth something.  :) Seriously though, I have to appologize for the comments and flack you are taking for this. You have laid out a good Vfd scenario, for this particular case. I have been, and will be, commenting to other Wikipedians that may have an issue with you on the current proceedings. As you are only trying to accomplish what was discussed there, and I'm sure in other areas, a fair and impartial Vfd. I hadn't even realized that there was another Vfd until User:Mr. Delayer showed up all over the recent change logs. I hope that I could be of assistance, if not, best wishes. <>Who?¿? 12:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, does the GNAA article really need to state that they survived all of those VFD's? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, yes it does. Because otherwise clueless people will keep on VfDing it because they didn't know. This actually worked for a while until the recent VfD where a sockpuppet deliberately nominated it for the 5th VfD (in decidedly bad faith). Now the only thing that can save it is a mandate from the admins that YOU SHALL NOT VfD! --TexasDex 06:12, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


What actionable issues are you referring to? I wasn't at all convinced that a page move would be a good idea.

Here is my response to the user. As far as I know, there is no term other than "libertarianism" that libertarians can agree on, so moving the page would violate (my understanding of) policy in the same way that a category called "right-wing nuts" would. Libertarians are loath to let someone else name their philosophy, as the beginning of this article by Boaz points out.

  1. I think we can safely rule out Hayek's terminology, and agree that moving the page to "liberalism" would be a bad idea. Although continuing use of the term to mean "libertarianism" might at least justify a link.
  2. "Right-libertarianism" is misleading (see, for example, the stanford article) because it takes "left-wing" stances on social issues, has a more or less left-wing faction (georgism or geolibertarianism) and (at least claims to be) intellectually descended from liberalism. The term is used primarily by libertarian socialists, and what the article currently calls libertarians hate the term.
  3. "Libertarian capitalism" is not a very common (at least according to Google) and again seems to be used mostly by opponents.[14]
  4. "Classical Liberalism" has its own issues: non-libertarians dispute the connection between the philosophies, and even people that agree on the connection want to keep their terms for Milton Friedman separate from their terms for Thomas Jefferson (see the middle of the Boaz article.
  5. "Radical capitalism," a term derived from a statement by Ayn Rand could refer to a subarticle of libertarian economics, but doesn't seem broad enough for describing the whole philosophy.
  6. I think we'd have to have some kind of parenthetical title like Libertarianism (capitalist), but I don't feel like one word in parentheses can accurately capture the differences between two very different philosophies. And even if we did that, we'd still have to change over 1000 links...

I think that quotes like these (again, from the Boaz article) don't necessarily mean that we have to move liberalism to a neutral disambiguation page:

Libertarianism may be regarded as a political philosophy that applies the ideas of classical liberalism consistently, following liberal arguments to conclusions that would limit the role of government more strictly and protect individual freedom more fully than other classical liberals would. Most of the time, I use liberal in its traditional sense; I call today's misnamed liberals welfare-state liberals or paternalistic liberals or social democrats.

The reason is that (at least in the U.S.), libertarians lost the argument about what to call liberalism. I don't see how the issue for libertarianism is any different.

Keep in mind that [my Google search] found that the term "libertarian" is almost never used except to refer to the philosophy described in the article, unless it's qualified as in "libertarian socialism. I think if Apple can be about the fruit (instead of a disambiguation page), libertarianism can be about the philosophy of Robert Nozick.

That response was a lot longer than I intended, so I'm sorry for cluttering up your talk page. But if you have any ideas that I've missed, I'd be glad to hear them. I'd like to put this debate to rest if possible.

Dave (talk) 15:12, July 10, 2005 (UTC)


My vote was removed because I was under 100 edits but I have now reached that amount. Can you please move my vote back? Dementedd 03:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

GNAA VfD[edit]

While I have no interest in the subject and won't be voting, I just have to say kudos for your attempt to straighten out this horrible trainwreck. You aren't violating policy or abusing admin powers; you're just clarifying some parameters and restructuring the voting process only for this one vote to prevent chaos and settle the subject once and for all. Keep up the good work, and nice to have you back. Soundguy99 15:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Geez, tabu, you definitely don't take the easy tasks. Good luck with this, man, and I'll see you for the sequel: VFD GNAA VII: The Voyage Home. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:34, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Just wondering when you intended to close this vfd? leaving an open date for closure runs the risk of looking biased. it seems unlikely that the 'delete' votes will ever reach 70% at this point without a huge boost in notability for gnaa. Adamn 09:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to define a special end date for this VfD. I'll close it once its standard five days are up and it has been moved to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old. That would be tomorrow morning, by my reckoning. I'll do it around 07:00 UTC. Lupo 10:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Ta bu wrote on my talk page: "Whoa! I thought it was 7 days... could we extend it to this amount of time? I have sort of told a few people this is when it will close..." Allright then, in view of this I'll close it on Friday morning. Unless, of course, somebody else does so before that time... Lupo 10:53, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism stuff[edit]

I thought you might want to know, the same kind of POVing is going on at Christianity and World Religions. Jayjg (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


Can you revert the vandalism to Rabbi, an anonymous user keep on vandalising it, and I can't do a one click revert. --Eliezer 10:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC) BTW, these aren't tests, look at the history and the vandalisms are always about someone being Gay. --Eliezer 10:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. (I live in Sydney.)--Eliezer 10:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


Hey, your call. I only protected it because you asked for it. Feel free to unprotect it. Noel (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The edit war having broken out again, I protected it again. Let's leave it for a good long soak this time - the article seems in reasonable shape, with lots of content - it can afford to go a week or two without change. Noel (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Adding Signatures[edit]

Thanks! It's too early in the monring now... Mikeage 08:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[edit]

(Blush.) That's me when it's late at night and I forget to log in.


You are so damn good to newcomers. Many thanks for all your good work. BrandonYusufToropov 12:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alfrem has been accepted. There is a pending temporary injunction at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alfrem/Proposed_decision#Alfrem_banned_from_Libertarianism. Fred Bauder 13:24, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Unblock after injunction is in effect. Fred Bauder 14:07, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

As you no doubt noted, I re-protected the page after the edit war broke out again; I have now unprotected it again! If you see any Alfrem socks, let me know and I will apply the appropriate instrument; better if I do it that you, since you've been involved. Noel (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

How would you feel about archiving all the senseless trolling by Alfrem on Talk:Libertarianism into its own archive? I think the issue is pretty much resolved and we don't need to scroll past all that crap anymore, plus it would be good to preserve it in one place for any future reference by ArbCom. I'm leaving this message on several talk pages, so unless someone objects, I'll do that in a couple days. --Malathion 04:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, that was kinda my point: None of them are active, or at least, they shouldn't be. Maybe I'm rushing to judgment here (this is the first time I've been involved in something like this on Wikipedia) but I took this ArbCom ruling as a resolution of the whole issue, and since none of the other editors were sympathetic to Alfrem's position, I can't imagine what else there is to say about it on the talk page anymore. --Malathion 04:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

TOCright proposal[edit]

Hi, Ta. Since you were the one who moved the Template:TOCright discussion to the Manual of Style, you might be interested in the draft proposal currently posted there. We appreciate any comments and suggestions you may have. -- Titoxd 23:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

GNAA VfD closure[edit]

Uh, what bias? It's clear to all that there's no consensus. --SPUI (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, SPUI was faster than I... I would have kept the article, too. Evidently there is no consensus to delete it, no matter how one counts. Lupo 07:49, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


You wouldn't know me since I'm just a lurker there, I don't participate in the trolling. 11:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Nice it is - but who's Pinto?[edit]

Hi Brookie here - thanks for the |Nice post - most certainly a good point for the Wiki - it is a statement of the moment given by whoever it was that left the note - and should form part of the article - for a Wiki that can tolerate whole articles on bizarre things such as a Star Wars Kid and other oddies - this is certainly encyclopedic! You've lost me on the Pinto point - who he? :) A curate's egg 12:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - No I don't know a Pinto - and Brookie is only a nom-de-Wiki! :) A curate's egg 07:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


I added my evidence. If anything is incorrect, I encourage you to let me know or change it yourself. Thanks for the heads-up. Dave (talk) 13:38, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


'I just blocked THE BULLSHIT DETECTOR - is that you? →Raul654 03:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hi TBSDY... LOL, I was amused by the revert war that was about to break out there for a moment... maybe we all missed a chance to get on WP:LAME ... good to see you back btw. Take care! Antandrus (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of THE BULLSHIT DETECTOR; I hadn't even thought of the possiblity it might be a preventative attack. On the other side, THE BULLSHIT DETECTIVE had some really nasty things to say at User_talk:Redwolf24#Usernames this afternoon, but User:Carbonite got to him and blocked him. Thanks for keeping the Wiki sparkling clean! -- Essjay · Talk 04:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

GNAA again[edit]

Wow, you got the article pretty much under control. It has been cleaned up a bunch, and I am about ready to do some fact checking. Good work. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


As I've indicated, I have sort of mixed feelings about how to treat this issue, but the fact that you're willing to go to the trouble of writing the story is a strong sign that it warrants being mentioned. So thanks for the work you've done, and I will definitely include it, although I will probably edit your text down into a more concise story, and possibly combine it with another VfD-related story. Oh, and ... they have a logo? Some people really do have too much time on their hands. --Michael Snow 19:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of {deletedpage} pages[edit]

Hey, why did you delete a page which I'd stuck a {deletedpage} on, and protected? That was done because people kept re-creating that page - which they can do again, now that you've deleted it. Noel (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


You may need to clear your cache. -- Netoholic @ 07:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

GNAA additions[edit]

Well, I'm not sure why you came to me- after all, I'm opposed to including what I basically regard as free advertising for a vanity organization. However, since removal of the article is by now a virtual impossibility, I am in favour of it being in the best possible shape. Rest assured, your edits should be included in the article. If you need any help, so as not to get a 3RR ban or whatever, feel free to contact me. --Scimitar parley 14:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The edits you made seem to be fine with me. No sense of free advertising to me. Ghost Freeman T | E / C | D 22:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Previous GNAA Vfd discussion[edit]

Hi, I hadn't had a chance to follow up with you after our discussion on VfD talk:GNAA, and then the Vfd that you personally orchestrated. I hope there are no mixed feelings from our discussions, as I only wanted to discuss future avenues. I feel you did a great job on the last Vfd, and spoke with several users about what you were trying to accomplish. Best reguards. Who?¿? 05:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


Very nice work on the notes for the Plame article. I might want to call you up to do the same for Terrorism etc. -SV|t 23:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


The ascii art was a bit out of line. But, really the "the dont readd or I'll firebomb your house" might be taken the wrong way (not funny). Other than that, I dont see anything OOTN, AFG. Maybe more detail later. -SV|t 23:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

"The membership is also anonymous, so it is not known with any certainty that there are [actually] any homosexual or black people in the organisation." Be ironic and crass - its the only defence against torpish hebetudinousness -SV 'Didnt say "firebomb"' - yeah, I was being (not) funny. -SV

Chocolateboy re: membership disclaimer - let me get back to you on that. I havent really read it, and Im curious, so maybe Ill make some changes meself. Sinreg, SV|t 23:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


FYI Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ SlimVirgin (talk) 01:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I've got RfCs on the brain. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:18, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Hey :-) Ta bu shi da yu 01:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


I'm following procedures from meatball:ForestFire, further replies can be found at:


see also: Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion#Kick_the_ass..._forestfire

Kim Bruning 02:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Heh, of course you're not a troll![edit]


It's early morning by now and I've been explaining to people from all over for ages. That's what you get for trying to clean up a mess :-/ Talk with DES for more.

Our culprit today was User:CaptainStinko, an unlikely fellow if ever I saw one. He's blocked now by the way.

Here's a chronology, quick and dirty, since I haven't slept yet ^^;;

GNAA gets on vfd for the squillionth time.
is created.
the above page is nominated for deletion by aforementioned captain
you make a new page
*YOUR* page gets vfded too
   Ut oh: meatball:ForestFire!  
*delete*delete*delete*stomp*stomp*stomp* fire out... mostly
DES doesn't quite understand forestfire, and runs around doing stuff that might reignite it
DES discovers that maybe I'm doing something sane and fortunately promises to stop
You come by and ask what's up.
abd that's where we are now

I presume the objective is to keep the GNAA at bay. I basically rolled back to the first safe spot before the forestfire, hopefully. Sorry I deleted your page in the process. We should probably keep it deleted for now (but you can get a copy ouf of deletion history for your personal archive I figure :-) ), just to prevent ForestFires from rekindeling.

I hope that explains enough, 'cause I'm about to drop dead from lack of sleep.

I'll talk with you later. Will you be on irc this evening (UTC)?

Kim Bruning 04:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Microsoft Jet Database Engine[edit]

Looks pretty sharp to me - only minor item is the red links. I've allready pledged my support - best luck making this a FA. WegianWarrior 09:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on my Talk page[edit]

A user asked me for my opinion on the present GNAA embroglio, which I provided on my talk page. Since I mentioned you by name, I thought I'd bring the discussion to your attention rather than talk about you behind your back. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Kim Bruning[edit]

Why did you unblock this user? He violated the three-revert rule, and received the standard 24-hour block. Do you believe that admins shouldn't be held accountable for their actions?

Furthermore, it was highly inappropriate for you to take any formal action on this matter, given that you were directly involved in the dispute. —Lifeisunfair 17:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

He unblocked me to help copyedit an article. Since Ta bu shi da yu is the one party in the dispute who can be said to have been potentially most harmed by this, I think he has the right to decide, don't you? Kim Bruning 17:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
That and after helping him I went right back to bed ^^;; Kim Bruning 18:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
As the other party who was "opposed" to Kim, or more corectly to Kim's actions in deleting the pages, I don't object to the block (which I never asked for) being lifted early. The point was made that the 3RR applies. I am willing to take Kim's motives, which seem to me to have been benevolant, into account, and I urge you to do so also, Lifeisunfair. Wheter TBDY's actions in lifting the block were improper I won't judge beyond this comment. DES 18:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I never accused Kim of malice, but an admin should know better than to behave in that manner (and should be subject to the same penalties as the rest of us). —Lifeisunfair 18:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, And thirdly, as soon as people stop talking at me, I'll go back to bed again, so I'll be effectively doing a voluntary block. It just seems unfair to pretend to be blocked and not answer people when in reality I physically can. ^^;; If you like I'll reblock myself, if you really insist Kim Bruning 18:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
"He unblocked me to help copyedit an article."
Many users wish to copyedit articles during periods in which they've been blocked. Why are you entitled to special privileges?
"Since Ta bu shi da yu is the one party in the dispute who can be said to have been potentially most harmed by this, I think he has the right to decide, don't you?"
No, I don't. Your infraction was committed against several specific users and Wikipedia as a whole. And as I pointed out, in situations such as this, blocks/unblocks are to be administered strictly by uninvolved admins. Ta bu shi da yu had no right to override El C's decision. —Lifeisunfair 18:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
"If you like I'll reblock myself, if you really insist"
Yes, please (for the full twenty hours remaining in your original penalty). —Lifeisunfair 18:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Don't be absolutely and utterly ridiculous.
The 3RR, misguided as its application often is, is not (as) a blunt instrument as you seem to think it is.
There was no real reason for Kim to be blocked in the first place, and certainly not one to re-establish a block under it that has been removed in good faith. Blocking wars are sufficient to lead to sysops being de-priv'ed, possibly permanently.
James F. (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
P.S. And yes, before you ask, had you carried out the same actions I would have objected to you being blocked under the 3RR; the user's privs, or lack thereof, are irrelevent.
James F. (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
"The 3RR, misguided as its application often is, is not (as) a blunt instrument as you seem to think it is."
Kim committed precisely the type of infraction to which it's intended to be applied (edit warring). Furthermore, this wasn't even a relatively innocuous case (in which two or more users were battling over an article's content). Kim repeatedly removed a formal undeletion discussion pertaining to a page that he deleted. He had absolutely no right to do so.
"There was no real reason for Kim to be blocked in the first place,"
A flagrant 3RR violation isn't a "real reason"? Or does this only apply when you agree with the motive behind the reckless edit warring?
"and certainly not one to re-establish a block under it that has been removed in good faith."
How does Ta bu shi da yu's removal of a block legitimately imposed by an uninvolved admin remotely qualify as "good faith"?
"Blocking wars are sufficient to lead to sysops being de-priv'ed, possibly permanently."
So why are you defending Ta bu shi da yu's decision to override another admin's block? —Lifeisunfair 19:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

/bows in incompetence[edit]

As your official scapegoat (?), a hearty whatever to you all. El_C 21:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I am pleased with Ta bu shi da yu's comment on my talk page here. Thanks for understanding where I was coming from, TBSDY. Best, El_C 22:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Blocking for 3RR[edit]

Moved to WP:AN. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


Interested in assisting me with Encrypting File System? It's crypto-stub and I noticed it when I was writing the Windows 2000 article. How do you think we should structure this? Incidently, would you be interested in commenting on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Windows 2000/archive1? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked this completely ;-) I don't know anything about the EFS at the moment, but it might be fun to read about it. — Matt Crypto 15:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


Tabu, Please undo your recent edit here. A background set in a specific template will override that default, but it's still important to have that default. Also, you should test changes by modifying your own personal CSS first, then copy to the main. This avoids unintended effects. -- Netoholic @ 03:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

There is already a .infobox section at the bottom. You should remove your new addition ASAP, then I'll help with that one template. -- Netoholic @ 03:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Tabu, I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but please revert all your changes related to infoboxs (go back to this edit). I'll help you, but adding template-specific code there is bad for number of reasons. #1 is that it is uneditable by non-admins. The CSS code should apply very broadly to a whole class of templates, and should be tested, then proposed for placement there. I will be glad to help. -- Netoholic @ 03:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Infobox OS[edit]

What color do you want the Infobox OS? The first line of the table should only need to contain this:

{| class="infobox" style="width: 24em; background-color: #CHANGETHIS;"

Remove "background-color: #CHANGETHIS;" if you just want to use the default for infoboxs (the very light grey). -- Netoholic @ 03:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

There's also some overlap with Wikipedia:Infobox templates. Wikipedia:Infobox was the first page, and used for standardiszation prior to my introduction of the template/parameter method. I'm not sure where either stands. I do plan on documenting the new CSS method. I was in the middle of testing, and not sure when I will be allowed to start up again. -- Netoholic @ 03:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew[edit]

  • Hiya, you offered to administer the vote for the above if it was re-started today.

It has been at the same location - the old VFD being moved. ~~~~ 00:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Hey. I wasn't trying to be a pain in the nut...I just got whacked over the head (figuratively, b"H) when I divided up a VfD before... :-p Tomer TALK 04:56, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


I think I've found the answer to your WP:RD question on the elephant in Les Miserables. It was a plaster model of a monument Napoleon intended for the Place de la Bastile. It stood from about 1814 to 1846, and a drawing of the bronze sculpture by Jean-Antoine Alavoine (which was, sadly, never executed) can be seen here. - Nunh-huh 06:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC), satisfying your elephant needs since 1996.


please read Talk:Jesus before reverting again--JimWae 07:06, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

Your attention needed[edit]

Please see VFD on Authentic Matthew if you haven't already. Davilla 22:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The edits in question are [15] and [16]. ~~~~ 22:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: My sig[edit]

I didn't realize that, I'll fix it right away, thanks for telling me. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 15:18, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Your talents[edit]

A med student gave Pregnancy a new Terms and definitions section, which is really nice, but which I had to move down, promising to link to from relevant sections in the article - would you mind doing a few, so we can see how its done right, and Ill take a look at the Gay Nigger Association of America article. ;-) -Ste|vert 19:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

GNAA review[edit]

  • "Yes I will" - being hard-ass can be counterproductive, in the wrong situation. In Manning's case, denying VFD -- he was willing to take a WP:RFAR, after 6 VFD attempts, and so would I. This doesnt mean that that kind of hard-ass-ness would work for other issues.
  • "it is not known with any certainty that there are any homosexual or black people in the organisation" - It doesnt really matter. I think you were being a little sensitive, thinking that the group might be based in offense rather than humor. Who knows and who cares. Intentions and philosophy arent real aspects of any shock and awe group -- its just shock and awe.
  • Looks like you were being a little bit funny, a little bit hard-ass, and a little bit confused by Chocolateboy's answers, some of which were half-baked. In particular, the notion that there was "proof" of gay involvement was just as futile as to claim there was none (per above). :-\ Oh well, now you know a little better, eh? Sometimes people get in silly arguments and then suddenly start regretting it all as a big waste of time. We all learn from our mistakes. Or at least we should.-St|eve 01:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • From GNAA /archive 3 -- for 'anyone who submits it for VFD, and thinks him wrong for reverting them outright.' -St|eve 03:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Page protection request[edit]

Please protect Creation science. See here for more details. -- BRIAN0918  04:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

  • It's already at the page linked above. WP:AN just means waiting, more revert warring, and less discussion. -- BRIAN0918  04:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)