Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:13, 18 March 2005

I've deleted a welcome message and several posts from someone upset that I removed links to her site that were inappropriately added to several pages. If you feel like reading those, they are in the history.

Please add new comments below.

DreamGuy 01:38, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Bloody Mary (person)

I have found a number of other web references for the idea that Mary I of England and her failed pregnancies may have something to do with the legendary Bloody Mary. I put links inline. It may be a conjecture, but it isn't original with me.

I've finally turned Bloody Mary into a disambig page, although Bloody Mary (person) discusses both the epithet for the queen, and all of the various fictional/legendary characters that use the name. -- Smerdis of Tlön 03:02, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, from my reading, only one of those links endorse the idea that Bloody Mary came from the queen, and that was the email from someone who heard it when they were 12 or something. The problem was that the paragraph suggesting that as a possible origin took up just as much space as the rest of the section put together, so it was getting a lot more space than I think it deserved. Now that it has a new page with expanded information and different wording it looks a lot better, because the mention becomes an aside instead of the majority of the text. DreamGuy 05:09, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Gwine

Thanks for looking over Scipiocoon's contributions. I'm bothered by the casual use of words and phrases like "darkish dialect" and "smoky entertainment." I'm at work, and can't roam the Wiki as freely as I can at home. Glad someone else is watching out. Let me know if there's any way I can help. Joyous 13:36, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper complaint

This is Misplaced Pages NOT Ripperpedia. Keep the Jack the Ripper stuff in its proper place and don't spread it all over the place.

(Added heading and signature since person who made comment had it in the Gwine section.) So why does some anonymous person seem to think he or she gets to choose what's the "proper place" for things? I assume this is the same person complaining that articles about, say, William Withey Gull mention that that they are primarily known these days for being named by various authors as Jack the Ripper candidates. This is their primary claim to fame. The fact that it's mentioned is one of the most notable things about these people, so mentioning that (and the reasons why the claims are ridiculous) definitely belong in those articles. This has been the opinion of several people who moved the in-depth details out of the main JAck the Ripper page, so it's not like it's only my belief and this anonymous unregistered person is the one representing th will of wikipedia. What's even funnier is he says this to me after I moved the bulk of the Jack the Ripper suspect info out of Lewis Carroll's article into an article about the solitary bok that made claims against him. Every other suspect has been named by mutliple authors with claims that are much more widespread. 80.43.205.224 has nothing to complain about, and I'm not going to worry too much about the opinion of a rude person who doesn't even know how to properly add a comment to a user page or doesn't bother to register. DreamGuy 22:23, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Stop getting personal. You say - "Please stop blindly reverting articles without even trying to respond to explanations on why changes were made" - I haven't been doing that, I have only edited the Cornwell article and re-instated your removal of relevent information about her book and I have clearly explained why in the edit summary - Why do you keep removing it?

If you'd read the talk pages you would see why I keep removing it. There are two pages covering the same info, duplicating content and often contradicting each other. The topic needs to be covered in one central place, and as Sickert has a variety of theories allegedly linking him to the Ripper crimes, with Cornwell's just being one of them, the Cornwell page isn't the place to merge all that info together, so Sickert is where it goes. The theories are the things he's most noted for these days, not discussing them would be completely ridiculous. You "clearly explained why in the edit summary" is basically saying the same thing over and over without looking at the talk page that explain to you why what you did is wrong. Read it, pay attention, and stop putting your biases in the way of cleaning up articles. DreamGuy 10:35, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

IF Sickert wasn't even in the country, then there is no way that he could have been the Ripper, so why are you tainting his name this way? As I keep pointing out to you, if this was a Ripper centred wiki then great, let's put everything on the Walter Sickert page, but it is NOT. This is a general purpose encyclopaedia with biographical entries that are meant to be taken seriously. Why are you filling biographical articles with speculation that can have absolutely no foundation in fact, because some bint has sold a few thousand books blackening his name? It makes ABSOLUTE SENSE to put information about Cornwell's book on her page. If this duplicates other information in Misplaced Pages then so what!? How many pages say that Germany invaded Poland in 1939? I'm sure that information can be found in hundreds of articles. Granted, there are other books that claim that Sickert was the Ripper, but again if he wasn't even in the UK at the time then they also contain bogus information and are not factual, so why treat them as if they are!? IF there are contradictions then fair enough, let's weed them out before restoring the information to the Cornwell page - Turkey

You really need to read about Misplaced Pages policies before making changes here. For example, you have now violated the Three revert rule by arrogantly switching back the Patricia Cornwell article. This means you could be banned. Your complaints make no sense. Information about Cornwell's book is on her page in the changes I made but you kept reverting, in a summary and a link to Sickert's page, where it is discussed in more details with other accusations. AS already explained, we should not have large amounts of text duplicating and contradicting other articles covering the same facts. Your example of a single point of information mentioned in multipe articles is a bad metaphor, as this is an example of going in depth on the same theory and dispute in more than one place. I am not tainting Sickert's name in any way, I am objective discussing the fact that he is most notable for being names as a Ripper suspect and describing the pros and the cons, as encyclopedias do. Apparently you completely decided that one argument is 100% right, and because you believe that the other side shouldn;t even be mentioned at all in the article discussing the person. Your bias is clear and painful. Now please take some time to read the info for beginner's on how this site works. DreamGuy 11:00, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

He is notable for being a prominent artist of his day (you seem to be unaware of this). He painted a picture called "Jack the Ripper's Bedroom", he lived in Whitechapel, but he was almost certainly in France when the murders happened. Therefore such accusations are almost certainly without foundation. Occams razor suggests that he was not the Ripper. I understand that the issues surrounding Sickert's alleged guilt should be discussed somewhere, but NOT in the main entry about his life and works. THIS is not the correct place to put rumours and speculation which cannot be taken seriously by seriously minded people. Misplaced Pages is not The Sun or the News of the World and it is not Ripperpedia. Please do not view everything from the perspective of the Jack thr Ripper murders. What are the contradictions you keep going on about? IVoteTurkey 12:18, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I understand that he was a somewhat prominent artist back in his time, but that's not what he is most notable for these days. He would have been completely forgotten to everyone but scholars of the history of art if it weren't for the Ripper accusations. What you don't seem to follow is that your conclusions that he should not be considered the Ripper are just your opinions. Expecting your opinion and only your opinion to be refelected in the articles here is a drastic violation of the NPOV policy and completely contrary to the concept of an objective encyclopedia. Now, would you stop harassing me by posting the same arguments over and over on my talk page and the talk pages of all the various articles for which you are ignoring the concensus of several editors in your crusade to sweep notable Ripper accusations under the rug. DreamGuy 02:57, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

How is it an opinion, to conclude that since he wrote letters from France at the time of the murders, then he could not have been in England in order to commit those murders. To claim otherwise is a logical fallacy. Opinions have nothing to do with it. Where is this "concensus" <sic> of which you speak? I see no such consensus. IVoteTurkey 05:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are misinformed on the facts concerning the points of the controversy. Sickert didn't write letters from France at the times of the murders. Other people wrote letters mentioning that he was in France on vacation at two dates (not nights of the murders) during the month that three of the canonical Ripper murders happened. That's not proof he was there all that time or that he didn't travel back to England on the actual nights of the murders. It's your opinion that he couldn't be the killer and your opinion that it shouldn't be discussed in his article. Obviously the fact that the article was written and edited by several people putting that information there and by others saying an in-depth accounting shouldn't be on the main Ripper (or suspect) article means there is a concensus that it should be on Sickert's page. If you are unwilling to recognize that fact, that's your own issue. You already placed comments on the talk pages of several articles, there is no need for you to continue to post this nonsense on my talk page. Go read up on Sickert's lide and on Misplaced Pages policies (specifically NPOV so you can be better informed. DreamGuy 09:31, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Ok I have misinterpreted the point about the letters but it amounts to the same thing. Good grief you do realise that we are talking about before the age of the motor car and high speed trains or the channel tunnel. Where in France was Sickert's family residence? I find it extremely hard to believe that he could have nipped across the channel committed a murder and then nipped back. Today using the Eurostar it takes 2 hours 35 minutes to travel from London to Paris. In the 1880s it would have taken an entire day. It it patently ludicrous. IVoteTurkey 11:04, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You sure are highly opinionated for a topic you don't know all that much about. And that's not the only thing you've misinterpreted. You've also drastically misunderstood the purpose of wikipedia. It is not here to print only what your opinion finds reasonable. Encyclopedia articles present all sides objectively instead of simply just deciding not to mention the thing that the person is most famous for because you happen to think it's ridiculous. You still haven't even attempted to understand NPOV policy or how encyclopedias work. Now, for crying out loud, you're already posting all of this on the talk pages of the articles in question, you don't need to embarass yourself any further by posting more on my talk page. DreamGuy 11:27, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

My opinion or your opinion doesn't enter into it! It's a matter of cold facts that pretty much everybody of repute discounts the theory that Sickert was the Ripper. You INSIST that that Sickert is most famous for being a Ripper suspect, when in fact he was a prime mover in British Impressionism. Why should biographical information about what Cornwell did take up several paragraphs in an article rhat is about Sickert? You are looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope. IVoteTurkey 11:41, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but it's not shared by myself, the previous editors of the Sickert page, the person who locked the Cornwell page to try to reach a compromise, or the people who moved the information out from the Jack the Ripper page. I have repeatedly asked you to stop posting this in my talk page when there is already a talk page with someone trying to mediate a solution. Your continual posting here just further demonstrates your lack of any desire to try to work towards a reasonable solution. You should be grateful that you weren't banned for violating the three revert rule, stop pushing your luck. DreamGuy 12:07, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I do wish you would stop using the condescending, aggressive and threatening tone, I really really do not appreciate it. I really must insist that you desist with it. The situation regarding the Sickert page has evolved over time if you look back in the history you will see that the Cornwell stuff has crept back in. The Cornwell page was locked at my request, to stop you from continually reverting it. You don't have to reply to this if you don't want to. IVoteTurkey 12:15, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Funny, as you were the one reverting it without explanation and violating the three revert rule. I don't have to look back over the history of the Sickert page, as I was one of the people who helped make it. Several editors on that page and the Ripper page(s) obviously did not object to the info being there instead of on the list of Ripper suspects, so your opinion that it should be removed is clearly out of step. If you don't appreciate the attitude you've brought upon yourself, the simple solution is for you to start following Misplaced Pages policy and to stop trying to blame me ("you don't have to reply") for your bad behavior. DreamGuy 12:46, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Election Controversy Article NPOV

Please help us improve areas that have NPOV problems on the election controversy article, if any. What specifically do you see as problems? Did you read the discussion when the parent article recently survived VfD? I find it ironic people that are voting to delete the article because of NPOV or size concerns have not helped out on the page or mentioned their concerns on the talk pages. Nothing has changed with their points and rhetoric since the parent article survived VfD. The page history will prove that Netoholic's claim clean up-ers are being reverted is false. zen master 18:03, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Patricia Cornwell

Could you please summarize your view on Patricia Cornwell on its talk page as outlined in the protection section there? -- ] 12:54, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I summarized them there, thanks. I'm kind of upset that the version that was protected is only the way it is because the other person violated the Three revert rule, but oh well. I tried to look into how to get him temporarily banned for that but could find a way to report that. For my future reference, how does one do that? DreamGuy 02:51, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Ripper victim

If I remember correctly Gordon is a new member. He might not be aware of the policies regarding moves. And I could be wrong, but I think he hasn't had all that much time to respond. He was busy editing the reference sections. I'll talk to him and change the link as soon as the page is moved. ] 21:59, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, he's new. He's been going through and changing it to Catharine other places too even after seeing my concern on his talk page at least (as he responded to it, though he may have missed the explanation). I have no problem with waiting for it to be cleared up, but then if he starts hunting down all mentions of "Catherine" on other pages (suspects, famous prostitutes, people famous in death, etc.) it's just that much more to undo later. The article was previously on an article with the correct spelling, which he has since forwarded to the new one he made, so would we have to have the original deleted and the new one moved? DreamGuy 22:04, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

I've changed the title on the Ripper letters template, technically speaking the postcard wasn't a letter, but you're right. The title was misleading. I'll keep an I on the Catharine links and see how it goes. ] 08:37, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Election article NPOV tag

You're probably getting sick of being asked, but I need to know: where in the talk page is there specific objections to the NPOV of that article? I need to know to work out whether the page should be locked or not if too many reversions happen. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, mine are in at NPOV Tag and Cleanup Preliminary Discussion -- and all I got for my trouble were peope ignoring it and insults by a guy who keeps taking the tag off. I could make a ton more, but, honestly, I only have so much time in a day to spend on something I don't get paid for, and the bias is so blatant (especially with people trying to get the page deleted for being too biased) that it should be obvious. DreamGuy 13:10, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Dreamguy, it looks like Ta bu shi da yu posted on your talk page about NPOV, not me. Though I did post on one of election controversy article's in question's talk page and I agree with his question. Your accusations against one frequent editor of the articles may be correct, but still, there has been very very very little reverting of POV clean ups, Snowspinner is the only person I recall really adding to or cleaning up the article with a one sentence addition. Please list specific instances of POV of other clean ups being reverted? Talk page discussions absolutely do not count as evidence for the very serious accusation that edits were being reverted, people who think there are problems with the articles really need to stop using hyperbole. zen master 18:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zen-master, please scroll up on this page to see the comment you left. As far as specific evidence, I don't want to have to try to dig through the page history again, but I can assure you that it was on the article on not just the discussion page. I believe the most blatant example would be reverts that brought graphics back. But then if you are claiming that nobody is reverting changes that try to make the article less biased, I could try cleaning the page up some. But the fact that people are removing the NPOV tag of all things by claiming there is no controversy shows that some people won't let even the slightest change attempt to move toward objectivity happen. DreamGuy 23:41, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Requests for comment

I've listed you on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/DreamGuy IVoteTurkey

You just don't give up thinking up new ways to attempt to cause strife, do you? DreamGuy 14:09, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Just to let you know that the abovementioned RfC has now met the two person certification threshold and so has been moved to the "approved pages-have met the two person threshold" section. To me, this is just an indication that you are in a dispute with at least two other Wikipedians - and usually means that both sides should step back a bit and consider how best to resolve the dispute. This may mean choosing to edit pages where you will not come across the same users, modifying your own behaviour in the hope it will set an example to those you are in dispute, or maybe you'll wish to consider using a mediator to help resolve the dispute, or that you choose another course of action to draw back from the disagreement. But whichever route you and your fellow disputants choose, may I wish you all the best in coming to a speedy resolution. Kind regards, jguk 20:13, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It basically just means I ignore them and their foolishness and continue on using Misplaced Pages the way it was meant to be used. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing to resolve, it's just a couple of people abusing the system to try to make petty accusations after they didn't get their way when consensus was reached on what to do with some articles. DreamGuy 20:25, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

George Chapman

Hi DreamGuy;

Thanks for your message regarding Dr. Thomas Neill Cream. Thanks for fixing the page up a bit too with regards to my misspelling of his name.

I've recently added an entry for George Chapman, the Polish guy listed as a possible Ripper suspect (it needed a Disambiguation because it's also the same name as some poet or other.) I did not put a huge amount about the case because I only have one book that mentions him and I can't find too much on the web other than those that list a brief description of him under the heading of 'Ripper suspects'. I'll see what else I can find to expand it a bit. I also put in a note about how he is considered a suspect by Frederick Abberline but how he is also disregarded by some as a suspect because it is unlikely a nutcase would go from ripping women open to just poisoning girlfriends. Obviously you are more than welcome to add to the cross-referencing between Chapman and Jack T. Ripper; I figure myself quite knowledgable on most things serial-killery but not so much on historical cases, so you sound like the best person to inject such Ripper-related info into the Chapman article.

Take care. User:Robert Mercer, December 23

A vandal responds

From user 24.164.211.25, Okay, I give up. You are right, I shouldn't have apoligized but turn around and do the same thing. You seem like a nice person for not turning me in for vandalism. If you get this message please mail me like you have done before. By the way, becuase you said that you were a published author, I would like to read some of your works. Don't sue me!

RMS Queen Mary

I've had the RMS Queen Mary on my watch list for awhile because it's been on my to-do list. The article needs quite a bit of work, including the junk on the ghosts (no I didn't write that stuff). Of course if I told the "real" story of the ship, the truth is that it is a big, boring ship and a huge waste of money for most of the tourists who visit it unless they are big Anglophiles. The only reason that I see going there is for the very expensive but tasty Sunday Brunch and some of the special events like their Scottish Festival. BlankVerse ∅ 17:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Deluge (mythology)

Hi there. Nice comments at the Deluge article. Please don't be intimidated by the Creation guys. From their reasoning patterns, I think one or two of them are downright psychotic. They will perpetually invade articles trying to place POV. I just undid a mess at Inherit the Wind. All you can do is watch and try to keep things in balance. But thanks for your support. For some reason the river inundation thing struck a nerve. I don't know how long you've been here, but I hope I don't sound like I'm lecturing or anything. I just like what you said at the article. --DanielCD 19:30, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi... I replied on your talk page. Thanks. DreamGuy 20:07, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Now hold up, DanielCD. If that's what you think of me, why are you asking me not to leave on my talkpage? downright psychotic? yeah. i'll see y'all later. Ungtss 18:22, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Left him a note trying to be civil because he "Quit". Dunno why he needed to say this here. Sorry to clutter up your page DreamGuy. --DanielCD 20:45, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As you can see above, I get harassment here and there from editors who don't know how to be civil, so this is not a big deal, DanielCD. Of course all Ungtss is doing is making our case for us when he calls people "psychotic." DreamGuy 03:26, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Myth

First, Ungtss has provided a source. Second, Ungtss's motives are irrelevant to me and I believe to wikipedia policy. What matters is the NPOVness of the content. NPOV is shown through citations and compramise, not personal attacks. Do you have a source, or even a standard, which indicates that CS Lewis is not notable in regards to myths? You need to prove that CS Lewis is a bad source, not that the contributor who added him is. Hyacinth 06:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Where did Ungtss provide a source? I never saw anything like that. All he did was make a blanket, unsupported statement. He should prove his side, you shouldn't be expecting me to prove a negative. As far as a source for my side, I would think lack of being taken seriously in the field, lack of references, lack of citations of his work is more than enough, but it's hard to pull out a whole lot of nothing to display to you. Should I send a box of 100 well-regarded mythology books and circle the L section of the biography to note that CS Lewis isn't in there?

I suppose one way is that his fairly extensive article here on Misplaced Pages (C. S. Lewis) contains no mention of being an expert on mythology or even having studied it any more than a standard classics education at the time would have covered. Adopting a few Greek myth-inspired characters for a children's fiction book (the only mention of mythology on that page) does not make anyone an expert, or else I suppose we ought to put JK Rowling up as the next "expert" on that article. None of his books (see the list there) have anything to do with mythology. Lewis' studies were elsewhere, mostly religion and not mythology, and nobody in the field of mythology uses him as a reference. That should be proof enough. Other than that, can you propose an alternative way? DreamGuy 09:23, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

User:Ungtss problems

I'm getting pretty tired of User:Ungtss's tactics and personal attacks. You can see some of his style in Talk:creation biology or Talk:creationism or Template talk:creationism and other creationists articles that I actively edit. I was wondering if you had any ideas about how to handle this person. His inability to remain civil is really problematic. Joshuaschroeder 03:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll reply on your page. DreamGuy 03:25, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

(I'm Joshuaschroeder's advocate) I think we must do the RfC (I know it's somewhat useless in user matters, but we can try...) as our first step in the dispute resolution system. What do you think? --Neigel von Teighen 17:04, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Might as well, another long-time editor suggested it on the Myth talk page for his abusive actions there. DreamGuy 00:50, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

I've started the page here: . Please help.

Ads

There is Misplaced Pages:External links, which also links to Misplaced Pages:Spam#External link spamming.

When an administrator goes to the User contributors , or difference between revisions (clicking "compare selected versions" in the page history), there appears next to each edit which is still the most recent of each article a "rollback" button which undones the edit and creates an automated message.

I'll take a look at that edit history. Hyacinth 04:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss boycott warning

Ungtss has recognized to have boycotted the creatonism pages (). I think we must perform RfC now. As I haven't been directly involved (I'm Schroeder's AMA advocate) in a dispute with Ungtss, I'm not the appropiate person to start the request. I have some interesting (and recent) evidence about Ungtss. --Neigel von Teighen 20:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd sign. I thought Joshua was putting one together? DreamGuy 07:15, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

way too unnecessarily specific

Yes, you're probably right. Sorry. In my defense, though, I'd like to point out that I changed it from "US$10", which I find a particularly horrid hieroglyph, up there with "and/or". De gustibus... –Hajor 15:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No defense needed, I was just explaining my edit. I would agree with you that US$ is generally not something an encyclopedia article should have, and in cases where it's necessary to specify your way would be better. DreamGuy 15:28, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Beltway Sniper Attacks

I was working on red links for Bushmaster Firearms, Inc. and was also in the Beltway Sniper article. I understand your points, and will stand clear this time. SBTC (Sorry 'bout that chief). Thanks for your work to improve these articles and links. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 15:21, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Let me respond over on your page... DreamGuy 15:31, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Brady Campaign and Brady Center

I felt that is was important to get the information into the sniper story that some action was taken to recover something for the victims and hold the gun dealer responsible. Bushmaster will probably be more cautious in selecting who will distribute their guns also.

These are apparently two separate entities, both still in existence. They have different origins the were brought together with Brady names if I am reading the website correctly. From this website:

"The Brady Campaign works to enact and enforce sensible gun laws, regulations and public policies through grassroots activism, electing progun control public officials and increasing public awareness of gun violence."

"The Brady Center works to reform the gun industry and educate the public about gun violence through litigation and grassroots mobilization, and works to enact and enforce sensible regulations to reduce gun violence including regulations governing the gun industry."

It sounds like the Legal Action Project could be involved in both, but mostly the latter. They probably have different funding and while the goals seem to be similar, in the political and lobbying worlds they would find political friends in varying camps.

See if you agree: http://www.bradycenter.org/about/

I'll fix the red in Brady article. If I can get more information, i will write a short bio to fit the red linked owner of Bull's Eye. Mark Vaoverland 16:25, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on naming conventions. That is a weak area for me. I wasn't involved with the Brady Campaign article, and i didn't popup when I created the Brady Center etc article. Are you going to work on it? Its unfamilar terrority to me. Vaoverland 17:44, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

RE: James Brady didn't found Brady Center or Brady Campaign, makes sense, since each was older org predating his injury which they renamed in his honor (and to gain better publicity, no doubt). Vaoverland 19:20, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss RFC

Have your read the summary by Ungtss? He has backfired and doesn't know what to do. He is confirming anything Joshua and you wrote! I really didn't expected this.

I have added my endorsement on the summary against Ungtss and provided some other evidence (diffs). If this doesn't work, I'll request mediation. Anyway, I hope the RfC will work and stops Ungtss: I don't like to be on an Arbitration case again. Yours. --Neigel von Teighen 20:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do you think that User:220.244.224.9 is a sockpuppet for User:Ungtss? How would we go about showing this? Joshuaschroeder 16:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe an admin or someone like that would have to check the IPs Ungtss posted from to compare them. Anonymous users can't certify RfCs, so don't worry about that. There's no point in trying to revive a dead RfC over a very flimsy claim that Ungtss is sockpuppeting. Also, you should not unstrike out the RfC he made about you, as you don't have authorization to do that. If you wanted the RfC to progress, you should have signed it and should have updated it five days ago. If you insist on trying to go forward, either get real current evidence or remove my name from it completely. DreamGuy 16:54, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Brady again

Sorry about the duplicate int link. During the night, someone working from an IP address relocated his place of birth to Daytona Beach, Florida and I was in there fixing that (after verifying that Centralia, Illinois was accurate). Vaoverland 18:06, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ward Churchill's commas...

Your edit summary (which incidentally, isn't really an edit summary at all, it's displaced talk-page debate), of your third revert:

sigh - if you are going to do that, you'll have to change the punctuation throughout the entire article, not to mention every US article that exists... please explain to me why British rules win?

You don't think that manual of Style rules ought to "win"? I believe I just did change the punctuation throughout the entire article -- twice, by hand, not counting subsequent reverts. Will I have to change it in every US article? Well, from United States (first article I checked, and first quote with punctuation instance I found):

however, social mobility is a widespread aspiration in America, considered part of the "American dream", in that even someone born

Makes a change from an edit war between the fevrent WC proponents and detractors though, I suppose... Alai 23:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That example you quote shouldn;t even have a comma at all, let alone one inside the quotes. The person making that edit doesn;t understand comma rules in the slightest so should not be used as evidence that some non-binding recommendations on some other page are policy. I mean, come on, US article, US punctuation, how can you argue against that? You can;t, other than somebody else made a mistake. Well, sorry, we're here to improve things, not blindly repeat the same mistakes over and over. DreamGuy 23:49, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Would you like me to find a few (dozen) more examples of people following the MoS in US articles? Or are you just going to dismiss those too? I don't have to argue it, the MoS does that for me. Alai 00:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apolgies for the edit summary

I apologize for the edit summary. If I had known it would offend people, I would have toned down the wording. Samboy 09:39, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Problem Editor

I noticed your comment on Samboy's talk page. You should be aware that this editor has a history of courting controversy, including actively supporting known cranks, sockpuppets and vandals, at least one of whom has been banned. These include Gzornenplatz, aka Wik (twice-banned vandal), IndigoGenius (abusive publisher of original research), Belgsoc (sockpuppet/vandal), Natryn (sockpuppet) and Stuart_Smith (sockpuppet/vandal). Late last year he initiated a long and pointless campaign to have me banned via a failed arbitration hearing that found I had no case to answer, and even published a private website accusing me of being mentally deranged. Should you have any issues with this editor please be sure to notify me, as I am tracking his pattern of inappropriate behaviour for future reference.--Gene_poole 01:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)