Misplaced Pages

User talk:David D.: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:36, 1 January 2006 editLa goutte de pluie (talk | contribs)22,509 edits thanks for your support← Previous edit Revision as of 06:01, 2 January 2006 edit undoFormer user 20 (talk | contribs)2,136 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 415: Line 415:
|<font color = "blue">'''Greetings Daycd,'''</font><br> I wish to offer my gratitude for supporting me on my recent ], which passed with the final tally of 65/4/3. If you would ever desire my assistance in anything, or wish to give me feedback on any actions I take, ]. Cheers! ] (]!) 08:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC) |<font color = "blue">'''Greetings Daycd,'''</font><br> I wish to offer my gratitude for supporting me on my recent ], which passed with the final tally of 65/4/3. If you would ever desire my assistance in anything, or wish to give me feedback on any actions I take, ]. Cheers! ] (]!) 08:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
|} |}

== Hovind and recent POV contribs ==

Hi David, I hope you're well. Dave Horn (WarriorScribe) has bullied his way into the Hovind article and is espousing his POV, again. I tried to nPOV the paragraphs, but he just reverts them. Perhaps you can come and increase the quality of the entry. I know you have cared about this sort of thing in the past. It's a shame when people like Horn, who care very little about Misplaced Pages, throw their weight around and try to ruin otherwise-decent articles that others have worked hard on. --] 06:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:01, 2 January 2006

——————————————— TALK: DAVID D. —————————————

Welcome.

(Contributions) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Current Talk



Template:UWAYOR

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!

User:Sam Spade

Why were the pages belonging to this user deleted?

Why were the pages belonging to this user deleted? I see that there were previously 96 edits on the talk page and 88 edits on the main user page. Bahn Mi 22:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

He deleted it himself.
-- Миборовский 00:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Human

Hope you can help us on Human. An new pair of fresh eyes can do wonders.... ≈ jossi ≈ 01:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

McClintock

Hi, thanks for the complements on the McClintock article. I have another biography to read before it's finished. I was wondering how you found the text- would it be confusing for people that don't know anything about genetics? --nixie 04:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I am a geneticist so I am probably not the best to ask. My feeling would be don't dumb it down too much since the reader should be able to research the scientific words. It might be a good idea to have a summary of her major accomplishments. Everyone knows about her jumping genes but the cytogenetics, especially the telomere contribution, is equally impressive. This may get lost to the lay reader the way the article is currently formatted. David D. (Talk) 09:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Fog&Sunny3.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Fog&Sunny3.JPG. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Misplaced Pages (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{gfdl}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairuse}}.) See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --cohesion | talk 07:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

EADS

Hi !

I am looking for information about EADS as I have to make an essay on this company...I have just seen your comment about EADS, so you may help me to find information about the different criticisms made on this company. Do you know any website, any newspaper or any article about it ?

Thank you for everything, Best regards, Ariabel zelliafr@yahoo.fr

Thank you

File:Thanks from jossi.png
 Thank you for your support on my RfA, and for your very kind words. Both are sincerely appreciated. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Ronald20

Ronald20 (talk · contribs) does occasionally do some good edits, so I try not to do Pavlovian knee -jerk reverts of his edits. One reason for that is that although he has never responded to any attempts to contact him he does seem to learn by example sometimes. Therefore I try, whenever possible, to do some cleanup on an article that he has edited instead of just simple reverts. You can see some more information about Ronald20 at User:BlankVerse/RonaldWatch.

You should watch that you don't blame every weird edit on TV and radio articles on Ronald20. He only edits from that user name, from dial-up IPs from the o1.com ISP, and from lausd.net (Los Angeles Unified School District). Also, his edit style is very obvious to me. There is another editor that has been dubbed the AOLBroadcastFan (see User:ErikNY/AOLBroadcastFan), plus there are a couple of other editors with odd editing habits that also edit broadcast articles.

Ronald20 doesn't do that much editing, and when he does his edits are usually easy to track. Furthermore, the falsehoods that he adds are usually very easy to spot (adding a death date way in the future to Snoop Dogg, saying that the Dodge nameplate has been retired, adding that KDIS (K-Disney) has abandoned their kid-friendly format). I have a much greater problem, for example, with editors who want to add unchallenged ID nonsense to the evolution article, or bigots who add trash to the Kwanzaa article. For more of my musing on Misplaced Pages issues, you can check out BlankVerse's ever-lengthening Misplaced Pages rants.

As for my "Use the Misplaced Pages at your own risk!" warning: It is just an enhanced and expanded, as well as more visible and more insistent version of the warning at Misplaced Pages:General disclaimer that you find linked to on every Misplaced Pages page. It's the version that I think that the Misplaced Pages should be using, but for now I will settle for it being on my user pages. I have been thinking of turning it into a subpage so that I can occasionally modify it while keeping the version on both my user page and talk page synchronized. If I do that, I will notify you if you want so that you can transclude that version. BlankVerse ∅ 04:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

As for the template: You should probably edit my editorial comment in the line "Misplaced Pages articles may be vandalized—either by immature kids or bigots" to just "Misplaced Pages articles may be vandalized".
As for the Jimbo comment: I think that you should consider Hanlon's Razor. Both the aesthetics and self-confidence reasons are misguided in my opinion. As far as self-confidence goes, I think that one of the great things about the Misplaced Pages is that we are freely willing to admit that there are many areas of the Misplaced Pages that are crap, but have also that we have the confidence (faith?) that the Misplaced Pages will improve over time. That is being extremely self-confident. BlankVerse ∅ 05:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what I could link it to, but there probably should be a line in my disclaimer that says "the Misplaced Pages is a work in progress". If I can't find something to link it to, there probably should be an Misplaced Pages namespace article written on that topic. BlankVerse ∅ 06:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of Tony Sidaway's Misconduct

I am currently amassing evidence of the misconduct demonstrated by User:Tony Sidaway and would appreciate your help in the matter. If you would please post any contributions you may have to User:TheChief/Evidence I would appreciate it very much. TheChief (PowWow) 23:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Excelent View

That view of the school Wiki u gave was excellent and very true. I doubt the school watch people cares about thier own schools.I come across just horrible school articles and heavy vandalism of them alot and I havent seen one revert made by the 3 main members:Kappa, Nicolumus79, Thiverr. Thats is some thing that needs to change. Im one of the few who acually reverts nonsense junk in schools articles and some times Im tempt to AFD them but I cant do anything has its probaly going to be kept. Thats why I normally vote delete on schools cause It just will be another badly vandalised article later on and I belive a school wiki should be made cause of that. Im going to email Ryan Norton as he is in a permanint wikibreak and cant do anything in talk about creating the vote page for the new school wiki and hopefully there the vandalism goes away and both deletetionist and illusionist of those schools be happy. --JAranda | watz sup 01:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: schools debates

I read your comment and laughed out loud. So very true.  :-) Chris talk back 20:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for saying so. I do appreciate the support on this.Gateman1997 23:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Mitochondrial disease

Well, a redirect should do for the moment. According to the manual of style, the first instance of mitochondrial myopathy can now be bolded on that page. Hopefully one day it will become its own article, but it's not a priorty of mine to work on that now... unless one of my patients turns out to have it & I'll be forced to read up on it :-) JFW | T@lk 19:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

school templates

Templates is a really tough question. I just keep finding so many exceptions, that it's really hard to find a pattern. You're right that I've been doing a separate table each time. I realize the problems with this. However, I find it's problematic forcing a standard. Different jurisdictions, use wildly different terms, for the same thing. Canadian schools have unique organizations, like Separate school districts (not public, and not private). Often, what's one item in one school, could be multiple items for another. But, even within Alberta, I find patterns difficult.

Some schools "feed" or are "fed" by certain others schools, while other schools have no such special relationships.

I had hoped that I would see a pattern, and then create/update a template, but so far, the pattern hasn't stabilized. Just recently, I've dealt with what should be a simple field "Primary language" (e.g. English or French). However, there are different cases: French language schools run by French school districts for French families, and French immersion schools run by English language districts for English families. So, I'm not sure how to make a template flexible enough to handle such stuff, but simple enough for simple cases. So, anyhow, I'll have to keep thinking about this one. It ain't simple. --rob 15:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I think you could be right that there are too many exceptions. One possability is to have a template, such that the overall look is standardised, but not specify the variables so that users can use what is most appropriate for each scenario. An example of this can be see in the Template:Infobox_School where you will notice there is one "free_label" and "free_text" option. i used this for the mascot option since mascot seem to be pretty big in the US. Consider a template where most of the variables are defined as free_text1, 2, 3 etc. This may allow the flexability that is required but help keep a predictable look to the infoboxes. David D. (Talk) 16:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I think, regardless of whether we use templtes in all cases, we can still specify a standard. Perhaps, make a semi-standard template. If people don't use it, they'll still be asked to conform to things like field order, and terminology to the greatest extend possible. Maybe it's best to create a template, that actually lists every conceivable field that you would want. Even if it's not always used, it sets the standard. For instance, not everybody will say "mascot", or "Primary language". But, we can insist that "Primary language" comes before "Mascot" if used. And it might dictate a term like "Primary language" be used instead of "Main language". --rob 16:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I think that it would be a good idea to standardise the order. In this way it will be easy to scan down any school template to find the required information and it will obviously be absent once readers become aware there is a defined order. David D. (Talk) 16:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The mergist view

Thanks for the thought. I agree that merging may not necessarily be the best solution, but then neither is everything having its own little article. The schools group is taking a very scattergun approach to the issue, blasting out a whole muzzleful of substubs and hoping that some of them will take. I contend that's not the best way to provide people with quality information.

I recently did a small study on the fate of school articles. I looked at the entire set of school articles for the states of California and Texas (I chose those two because they were big states and likely to have lots of school articles.) I was especially interested in the long-term fate of an article, so I was looking for articles more than a year old. I found twelve. Of the twelve, only two had undergone substantial growth since their initial writing. Five others had undergone some growth. Five were essentially unchanged. This means that nearly half the articles had not shown any improvement since they were first created. Now we have people on the schools bandwagon creating stubs like there was no tomorrow. My guess is that most of them will also be unchanged this time next year. The percentage may well end up being worse than it is now, because a greater number of people are creating stubs for the sake of creating stubs, and there is no vested interest in seeing the articles improve. I think the eventualists are really dreaming with their eyes open when it comes to school articles.

Thanks for dropping me a line (apropos to what, I'm not sure). It's always nice to dialog. Denni☯ 03:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Merging arguments

I got your message and added some comments to a few more of the arguments. Care to pick up where I left off? flowersofnight (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Washington Elementary School

re Talk:Washington Elementary School: WikiProject Schools needs to start a major disambiguation campaign because I keep finding school articles where there should be disambiguation pages. Many of the articles should be obvious that they should be disambiguation pages (like Washington Elementary School), but the majority of school articles should be checked against Google to verify that their school name is unique. This should be done for both school articles and school redirects.

After creating a couple of school disambiguation pages tonight, I am wondering whether there should be a school disambiguation template, so that you could have a school disambiguation category. Blank 13:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Schools pages, and any other page that have to do with schools on the Misplaced Pages, are so disfunctional that I refuse to get involved in any of them. I even read the riot act to User:Denni when he copied something to the WPSchools talk page that I had left on his talk page because I don't even want that level of involvement.
About 85% of the people involved in those pages have already made up their mind so it doesn't matter what argument you come up with. It would be nice if they could just agree on some common sense measures as far as creating disambiguation pages and school district articles, but I can't see them even agreeing on that!
To see what I have done with some school disambiguation pages, you might look at George Washington High School, Wilson High School, Ulysses S. Grant High School, and John Marshall High School.
Note: User signatures are currently SNAFU'd if you are doing anything other than a simple link to your main user page. To fix your sig, see Misplaced Pages:How to fix your signature. 17:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Wrong place for Guerrero story

Sorry to break the news to you, but I already told someone that "professional wrestling" is not a sport, according to Vincent Kennedy McMahon, but "scripted entertainment", which is why you should have left the Eddie Guerrero death story on the current events page. NoseNuggets 11:08 AM US EST Nov 15 2005.

Your Vandetta Against Gastrich

I understand you deleting the link to The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained (a rebuttal to) The Skeptic's Annotated Bible is simply you trying to attack the author (Gastrich) and silence Christian thought and Christian replies to alleged Bible errors. Should anyone conclude otherwise?--Bobby Lou 06:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you'll find a policy against spam. i think you'll find i voted to keep LBU. I try to be objective. David D. (Talk) 06:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Your merge example at Misplaced Pages talk:Schools

I was rather suprised at this example you gave. Bartlett High School, Bartlett, Illinois was merged into Elgin Area School District U46. I frankly, think the target article is not more encyclopedic than the school article (in its last form), and frankly has less potential to ever be encyclopedic.

To me Calgary Board of Education and Calgary Catholic School District are what district articles should be, in order to be encyclopedic. Notice I exclude phone numbers, and per-school attendance. They don't list all 300 Calgary schools. Instead they use the space to talk about the actual district, and what is mentioned in the high-school-only listing, has less-volitile info (e.g. grade ranges not attendance). Follow the blue-links in those school articles, and you'll find proper encyclopedic school articles (showing the potential of regular schools). A district article should inform the reader of the district, and not just list data.

In any event, I think your example shows that merges don't fix anything, they just transfer problems.

Also, on your comment

"This is one reason why i sympathise with the delete votes when editors do not finish the job they start. Sure they get cleaned up after Afd but how many don't? These article that don't pass through Afd are the problem."

Unfortunately, comments like this forced me to stop fixing the typical AFD'd school (as it encouraged more nominations-for-cleanup). I took huge numbers of previously AFD'd schools off my watch list. I've frequently improved articles that were never AFD'd, but of course that goes unseen, as do countless great school articles. You can't form an opinion on potential of school articles from the AFD listing, or the school-stub categories. Of course, even without me improving the AFD'd school articles, and even without me voting (most recently) they're still all kept, just with less improvement. Despite your comments, I finish school articles I start, and the problem of incomplete articles being created is not specific to schools, and neither is the solution. --Rob 10:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

First, I'm sorry for being overly defensive and less polite than I should be. I appreciate your open mindness on mergers, as I know I'm a broken record on my district theories. I agree with the goals you have, I just am not sure of the next step. I so wish we could tell people they just can't make masses of stubs, if they don't ever finish what they start (I don't expect complete works instantly, but I expect more than a sub-stub). There's probably little hope for it now, but I still think its a good idea if we could somehow change policy to move sub-stubs to some sort of "Request for new school article" page (with no loss of info). As really, "X is a school in county Y" is really a request for an article, and not an actual article. I think half the idea behind mergers is good: the information isn't ready *yet* for a school article (because raw data isn't sufficient to sustain an article). However, its the moving it to another article (the district) that's the problem. If we could just move it out of article space, but not loose the data (to appease the strongest inclusionists, I don't mind loosing sub-stub data myself). But, I suspect we'll have to come up some with some brand new idea before this is all settled.
p.s. As for the school pages you've made/edited (that you alluded to), consider putting some on you userpage as a model to others. Concrete examples are great. --Rob 18:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

EddieSegoura

The answer to your question is maybe. It's possible that Eddie is a troll, however it's also likely that he's a newbie, possibly young and inexperienced. I'm going to try to assume good faith and give him the benefit of the doubt. The more people involved, the better, so please be mindful of his contribs. At this point, he could really use a mentor. --Viriditas 02:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Eddie

Given what is happening in the Rfa's Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/EddieSegoura and now Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/EddieSegoura_2. Given that the word Exicornt appears made up. Given the use of sock puppets. Given the use of minor edit designation for major edits. I can't judge if most of his edits are correct/verifiable or not but the grammar is awful, almost intensional. Adding all these things together from a user who has only been around for less than a month shouldn't this users edits all be reverted as non verifiable? David D. (Talk) 01:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Certainly Eddie is either a troll or — well, I don't know what words to use that wouldn't sound like a personal attack — unable for unspecified reasons to understand Misplaced Pages policy. Assuming good faith means to assume the latter, though edits like give one pause. Still, I can't say I've seen him making edits that he doesn't seem to think are true. On balance, I'd say that a revert-on-sight rule isn't the right call; so far, even with his puppets, he isn't that prolific. It's probably best to continue to treat his edits on a case-by-case basis for the moment. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

EddieSegoura

EddieSegoura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits mainly via AOL. As such, it is impossible to identify whether any other account is a sock of his, given AOL's randomizing proxies. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I have faith in Eddie, I will help Eddie. Let me do that, I will try to make sure he does good, and becomes a fit user. If these things with Eddie would continue then I will take responsibility. I don't know why, but I really want to help this one, he seems like something good could come from him. Quentin Pierce 07:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Things have changed since. I would like Daycd's feedback on My recent contributions. I make dozens of edits each day. -- Eddie 16:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Eddie, I noticed you are thinking of going for another attempt in April. I am glad you are taking it one step at a time and not rushing to get anopther RfA too soon. I did have a look at your contributions and they appear to be pretty good. No arguments in a while too. Keep that up and i'm sure you will get a sympathetic view. David D. (Talk) 17:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, David D.. Sorry about the NYTM thing, but other than that, things are fine. -- Eddie 18:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Battlefield Middle School

Re: you comments on Silensor's page - Yes, there should be something merged, which is exactly why I copied the entire text to the talk page of the city and asked for input. The "district" idea as discussed on WP:SCH is good, too. It seems, though, that schools will not stay merged.
brenneman 23:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Your rant

Sometimes I feel exactly that way. - brenneman 20:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Sexual slang

The harm is that an 89 kilobyte thesaurus doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. If nothing else, note the "article size" warning at the top when you edit the page. "Having examples" means one or two sentences with a handful of examples, not an attempt to catalogue every conceivable term. The Literate Engineer 18:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well then the list should be pruned but not removed altogether. David D. (Talk) 18:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I see your point about having examples, and I agree that there should be a few to illustrate the concept. However, I don't think there should be so many examples that anyone would think to call it a list. Like I said, I think there should be a handful - half a dozen at most, and embedded in the article's text. So for all intents and purposes, I think the list should be removed altogether, but non-listed examples inserted. The Literate Engineer 18:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I can certainly live with a pruned down list of examples, that is then incorporated into the text. I just thought that the way the list was removed completely was pretty random. I noticed that the box, top right, is a link to some good examples in wikisaurus. It seems that there are plenty of examples in the list that could be transfered to wikisaurus? Or is that not an appropriate use of wikisaurus?David D. (Talk) 18:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's an appropriate use of wikisaurus. Actually, I hadn't even heard of Wikisaurus until UncleG told me that somebody'd suggested transwiking the whole list to Wikisaurus. I assumed, based on that box, that the transwikiing of legitimate terms was complete. The Literate Engineer 22:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of wikisaurus too. It sounds like the perfect place for the list. In that way the unobtrusive link box to wikisaurus, at the top of the page, should satify those that want to keep the list. Certainly I would support such a compromise. David D. (Talk) 22:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment on Answers in Genesis edits!

Thanks. It makes my day when someone takes the time to thank me for my work. Let me reciprocate by thanking you for looking out for all my typos. Christianjb 07:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Classmates.com, etc.

I'm delighted to see at least one person not condemning me as some kind of anti-intellectual. However I suspect I will be soon be the target of personal attacks, having been vaulted into the WP:SCH spotlight like that. No worries though, I'm prepared to deal with it. What I was really trying to say (though it probably did not come out right) is that for an article on an individual school to be included in a world-wide encyclopedia, the article better be pretty f---in' interesting as about 99% of individual schools are literally unknown to people living 3+ county lines away.

Uh, oh... as I hit the preview button to check for typographical errors, I see that I have new messages. Battlestations, men.

— FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Hi FoN, I apologise for opening the flood gates, as well as advertising this essay before prime time. I mistakenly thought, since it was in the essay category, you were comfortable with it. A lesson learned on my part. I will certainly help support you if there is any retribution, although, I'd hope that would not be the case. David D. (Talk) 20:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Well the only dissent I've gotten so far is from Kappa . I should have known to reserve a <div> box with his name on it. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 20:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I noticed you've given up on the whole compromise thing at WP:SCH. Until the latest AFD I'd have been inclined to try to bring you back to the table and part of me wants to still. But I too am starting to feel that a compromise is lost on the "keep" set. They aren't losing many schools with the status quo and aren't inclined to negotiate. Most of them have been taking the Nicodemus75 approach and frankly it's starting to piss me off. I'm not saying we should "cabal" ourselves yet. But my patience is wearing thin and the time may soon come to organize deletionists into a delete crappy school stubs organization. Because the lack of movement from the keepers is starting to wear thin. Deletionists have been compromising but I'm not seeing it from most of the other side.Gateman1997 19:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry Gateman, I feel I have tried really hard and there is no sign of anyone budging. I sometimes wonder if they are quick to take offense on purpose. They always seem to see an alteria motive in every comment. I just don't desire to waste any more time on this project. I have already invest much more than I would like. Sorry for caving in so soon. David D. (Talk) 20:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's lay some cabal... call ourselves "the dropouts" or something I dunno. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 20:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a word of warning: If you really do nominate a bunch of substub school articles at AFD, the inclusionists will start to retaliate. There was one of Snowspinner's RFC's, for example, which looked for awhile like they might even try to drag him through an RFAR. I've seen them, at least twice, threatened RFC's when someone started nominating too many schools (which seems to be more than one nom/day).
For an opposite tactic, I have been awfully tempted to start creating substubs for preschools, just to see if the inclusionists would vote yes on those when they show up for AFD. 21:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I am more likely to ignore all schools. I certainly don't intend to be disruptive or intend to make a point (other than making comments). However, you never know when you might come across something that is a clear speedy delete. In fact I just found out from Kappa that the school watch project has a schools needing to be cleaned up section. If I were to make any point I would direct the school micro stubs there before Afd. I don't mind giving them time to clean up the micro stubs. However, if months pass with no or limited action I think it is safe to say they can be deleted. It is clear wikipedia has good guidelines as to what an article should be including minimal context and content. David D. (Talk) 21:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Good grief... the school I did nominate appears to be a hoax! See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David M. Zimmerman Elementary School. If I knew that I would have tagged it for speedy. Or would such tagging have been reverted by the keep crowd? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 21:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Oops...

It occured to me that I replied to you on my talk page. So you probably didn't see my reply (duh). I'm too used to Usenet. Anyway, if you get bored... User_talk:Markkbilbo. Mark K. Bilbo 04:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics has been accepted. Please place evidence at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop. Fred Bauder 22:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis Alert.

Just to let you know that 58.162.252.67 is mounting an attack on Answers in Genesis and Jonathan Sarfati. Any help in the next day or two will be appreciated. Christianjb 17:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest letting them (it's 2 machines now) make any edits they want for the next few hours. Don't fight it. See my comments on the associated discussion page. We can work out what to do later. There shouldn't be a hurry. Everything is saved. Just let them continue- it will be seen as obvious vandalism by the admins. Keep me informed of any news. ThanksChristianjb 18:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the support. I'm hoping that persistance and vigilance will win out. AiG is a multi-million dollar company who care a great deal about perceived negative PR. It's been a struggle to keep up with the anon edits. I've been spending hours every night on this. I'm not going to quit on this page. Christianjb 04:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Again

Thanks again. I didn't see your comment until just now because you accidently left it on my user page- not my talk page. Anyway- sorry again for not being as careful as I should be with reading your comments. Thanks for the assistance. Christianjb 10:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuals and the holocaust

I have sent the following email to glbtjews.org

Dear Sir/Madam,

I've got some tough questions regarding an encyclopedia article I am helping to edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Answers_in_Genesis

This article in part covers a page by creationist organization "Answers in Genesis" in which the neologisms "homonazi" and "sodomofascist" are used. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2005/0218.asp)

These are the questions (and I'm sorry for putting them so bluntly).

Would the neologisms "homonazi" and "sodomofascist" be offensive to most homosexuals? Would they be considered particularly offensive because of the documented persecution in the Holocaust?

Could it be considered offensive for an encyclopedia article to point out the connection between these neologisms and the possible connection with the Holocaust? For instance, would the Jewish community in general feel that it diminishes their suffering for each group to claim they were persecuted- when it was one particular group, the Jews that suffered the worst destruction?

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. I personally consider the neologisms to be offensive, but as this has been the subject of some dispute with other editors I would like your input.

I want to be accountable for this email, so my full address is: (removed)

Christianjb 10:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

removing e coli?

Hmm I'm not sure about your edit. It's confusing at the moment. Is this section about the creation of the first life-form or is it about evolution? I started out discussing specifically AiG's interpretation about evolution- not the first life-form. Part of the confusion arose because I wrote about 'spontaneous generation'- because AiG talks about the probability of life-forms coming into existance which are obviously not "the first life-form". Their pages really muddy the issue- because I'm really never sure if they really mean that a bacterium for instance really spontaneously generates- which as they are right to point out is fantastically improbable. But it's all attacking a straw man- only the first replicating molecule needs to be explained by an 'origin of life' theory', everything else we explain by descent with modification. Christianjb 05:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

i have not finished yet. I was just trying to clean up the mess in that section rather than do a heavy revert. First i want to pair it down to the minimal content and then see wht is left. It may get added back. The bottom bit is a mess at the moment so I saved the top bit before going further. The first sentence is bad. I don't know or scientists that use the term evolution for the origin of life. Also it is very subjective when you define life. It is just convenient for AiG to define it as the first cell. As it is convenient for them to call origin of life evolution and I agree they are tearing down strawman arguments. Obviously the self replicating chemistry before a cell could easily be defined as life. Certainly the self replicating biochemtry that predates cells would be under Darwinian type selection. Feel free to change stuff around, I can work with that too. David D. (Talk) 05:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm way too tired to mess around with this tonight- so let's see what the morning's anon reverts do and take it from there! Christianjb 06:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Your edits

Of course I'm a little bit perturbed whenever I see any of my Shakespearean-quality words edited by another user. Anyway- I like most of what you've done and I'm going to be interested to see if it survives the night. I guess my main point in all of this was that AiG continuously attacks POV's that no evolution scientists hold- and I think most of that argument has survived.

Feel free to modify my bad grammar to Shakespearean-like quality. Please use thy eyes and wit, I hath little time to scribe said prose. Or do you jest my liege? but seriously the number of strawman arugments are incredible. i have had no reason to read AiG literature before now it is depressing. What is the deal with marriage and the church? Don't atheists get married in civil ceremonies all the time? I had no idea that marrriage was only legal in the eyes of God, I suppose all those French should stop bothering with their civil ceremonies prior to traipsing to the local church to get married in the eyes of God. I'm beginning to see a pattern with AiG. They hurl so many strawmen at you that you get beaten by the volume not by the arguments themselves. David D. (Talk) 16:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It is hard to see how this section can be written so that it satisfies everyone. I would at least like the AiG supporters to accept that their statements regarding evolution are thoroughly rejected by modern scientists. The trouble is, they will try desperately to show that there's a controversy amongst mainstream scientists regarding evolution- when there really isn't. Every single mainstream scientific organization is unanimous.

I have tried to write it in a way where it is obvious their ideas are strawmen without actually having to address their arguments. I think it is rough but a step in the right direction. David D. (Talk) 16:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

On a separate note- I don't know if you've been following my comments on the AiG talk page- where I call AiG a backwards fascist organization (or something like that). Yes- I know, it gives them enormous ammunition in discrediting my edits- but I think it's very important that we realize as Wikipedians that our own views and philosophies about a subject should not matter when editing the page. It really doesn't matter to me whether creationists edit the AiG page, and I have been careful not to insult or offend them when dealing with their questions. Let's be honest- this is in part a propaganda war. The supporters want to use quotes and facts that are relevant to their position and I want to use quotes and facts that are relevant to mine. It's not totally chaotic- I think it's a good way of covering both sides of the debate. However, there's a difference between passionate debate (good) and personal insults (bad) of which I've been receiving quite a lot of lately. I'm not made of stone and it is starting to get to me, but I am determined not to respond in kind by insulting those editors who are attacking me.Christianjb 09:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that in passing. i had assumed you were using it as a rhetorical device. I have seen that done before in wikipedia and as you guessed your critics will pounce on that argument alone. See the RFA at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Aaron_Brenneman and read the comments by Sjakkalle in the neutral section. All your other words will become silent due to the distraction it adds. It means your critics do not have to address the substance of your criticism. My advice would be keep it simple and don't use such debating tactics. it just gives them more mud to sling and a perfect excuse to ingnore the substance. David D. (Talk) 16:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Peace offering

Your response seemed a bit shrill. What say we both just cool off for a while?

For my part, I will post nothing about our conversation until Monday of next week (unless you invite it), other than to thank you for taking the time to engage me on this most confusing and fractious issue. I really do appreciate your efforts to communicate, and I regret any shortness or polemics which annoyed you.

We did in fact speak, and I was wrong to imply that we hadn't!

Cheers. Uncle Ed 16:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Well i was a bit taken a back. I was just trying to discuss your edits from my perspective. I thought that would be useful for you. To paraphrase what you say about the evolution polls at the bottom of your talk page We owe it to you to let you know who supports your edits and who doesn't. Only good faith discussion will help the consensus building. David D. (Talk) 16:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Use of "Schoolzone"

Hi, could I ask you put some comment on the talk page of Template:Schoolzone to clarify/explain its desired usage. Since, we already have "stub" tags, I assume "schoozone" is basically targetted to a sub-set of stubs, in dire need of attention (If I'm correct, that's a good tag to have). Basically, I'ld like a guide to know when an article is good enough to take off this tag. --Rob 18:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't put a specific time-line before merge/redirect. I think merge/redirect (and timing) really has to be based on its practicality in the specific case. For the most simple cases, like a one-line elem sub-stubs in a small US-districts I wouldn't mind such a redirect being done fairly quickly. If somebody wishes to do undo such a redirect (for instance my redirect of Birchview was undone), that's fine *if* the same person gives the article attention (either way the article has attention). High schools, and more unique schools (like charters, privates, and special-purpose), should be given much more time to grow as stand-alone articles. Where there's not a clear merge target, a merge probably shoudn't be done (I'm quite willing to compromise and accept merges, but only if there's a clear target). Also, as soon as modest attention is given to a school article, I would remove the tag. Lets not let the category build up to big, otherwise individual articles will get lost in it. I just noticed you removed the tag Bayridge Secondary School and I think was good (both adding when you did, and taking it off when you did). --Rob 21:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I fully agree about the target being identified and useful for a merge. The nature of such a target is probably open to debate and should probably not be too restrictive since there will be different issues for a small school district vs a massive district, or a private vs public school, as you have already pointed out. I worked on the Lincoln Public Schools to make it a more useful target. There is no doubt that some of the middle schools will be merged into that page with redirects. I used the table format although I know some people have reservations about it. I would hope that other users might go through the merge excercise too and use a format that they prefer. You may have noticed i also created a potential merge target for the Bayridge Secondary School at Limestone District School Board. This is an example of a style that is a list with minimal content (certainly more useful for massive districts). It's always good to see examples of different styles. David D. (Talk) 21:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Added: Perhaps listing schools with the tag is unnecessary, since they appear in the category. Instead, listing schools merged/redirected would be more useful. This allows a double-check to ensure the merge/redirect target is correct (a huge issue) and if somebody wishes to expand the article, they can undo the redirect, and give the school the appropriate individual attention. --Rob 21:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes that is a good suggestion. I'll think about how to incorportate that into the category page as well as the template page. Thanks for the feedback. David D. (Talk) 21:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I didn't think of it before, but I think you can add a category to the *talk* page of a redirected article. This could serve two purposes: The tag on the talk page of a redirect could explain the reason for the redirect (to avoid hasty un-redirects), and the category with the tag, could help people find the redirects. We obviously can't categorize redirects for our readers, but we can at least categorize the talk pages for editors, which lets us editors find them more easily (and manage them properly). A major issue with merges, will be maintaining the redirects, as they will have to be updated over time. --Rob 21:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Nice idea. I'll impliment that with the Lincoln Public Schools project. Hopefully leading by example will encourage the others to come out of the trenches. David D. (Talk) 21:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know, I put in the redirects for the four schools of Lincoln Public Schools whose AFD closed today. I listed them on the Misplaced Pages:Watch/schoolwatch#Recent redirects. If/when the tag/category for the talk page is created, you may wish to add it to the talk page, as discussed above. --Rob 17:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Rob, I appreciate your support on this project. I'm pretty busy now but i'll try and get the lincoln public schools cleaned up and then open up write a synopsis of what happened for discussion. David D. (Talk) 17:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:V citations

You may be interested in Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#Citation format poll: Format of citations and WP:V examples, and WP:FN. (SEWilco 08:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

rfa

Thank you for the support in my request for adminship. Let me know if you need help with anything. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:10, Dec. 17, 2005

Your Reverts on the List of Deists

Reverting multiple people's contributions due to your own agenda/desires, isn't how Misplaced Pages works. My suggestion to you: see if anyone else agrees with you. You can't force your opinion on Misplaced Pages. If you continue to do so, I'll get some others involved. Consider that if you're the only one reverting multiple people's contributions, over and over, then you may be wrong. Of course, I'm referring to your reverts at List_of_deists.--Jason Gastrich 23:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no agenda. I have discussed with good faith. For Lincoln the consensus seems to be he is deist. Would you disagree? My agenda is to stop data being removed from the page before it has been discussed. David D. (Talk) 23:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
This issue isn't simply about Lincoln, so I will withhold my opinion on that issue for now. This issue is about your one-man revert war against two others. "Data" isn't being removed for no reason. User 152.163.101.9 has removed three names from the list because he/she doesn't think they are deists. Instead of your knee-jerk reverting, you should contact him/her and/or discuss in the talk page. If you keep it up, you'll violate the 3RR rule. --Jason Gastrich 23:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
From experience anon editors do not respond on their talk page. i reverted with an invitation to continue the discussion on the talk page of the article. Where is the anon editor? You are putting words into the anon editors mouth. We do not know why the anon editor removed those names. David D. (Talk) 23:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I wonder how Gastrich knows 152.163.101.9 is a "long time contributor" as he put it? The only "long time" anything that appears to have come out of that IP is a persistent vandal Mr. Treason. I have to ask, is Gastrich claiming he knows this person? Mark K. Bilbo 04:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I too wondered if he knew the user. But i think he just looked at the the edit history and assumed it was one user. Clearly he sees the IP as a "friend" since it is making the "correct" edits. I doubt he checked the IP's talk page, so never noticed the vandalism notices or that it was AOL and therefore could be any random user. Just a case of no research into the users history here, I think. No surprise there. David D. (Talk) 05:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Babble

For the sake of compromise I didn't put "Darwinistic" back in. However, if you take the time to understand the rules and play the game, you will see that it is very Darwinistic. Perhaps this goes without saying, because drinking games that require coordination penalize those that have already consumed alcohol. Even so, the usage works and should not have been deleted in the first place. Haizum 02:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Darwinistic means that people are removed from the gene pool. How many of your friends died playing this game? If none it is not Darwinistic. See the talk page because I have since done some research and I agree with Viriditas that there is no way to verify virginia quarters. Your pdf does not count. David D. (Talk) 02:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: The word is used figuratively and that is as obvious as your malicious intent. Haizum 02:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Malicious? The word has a real meaning and you used it inappropriately. An encyclopedia is the last place you should be using a word figuratively. David D. (Talk) 02:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is...

... Haizium types a lot faster than Eddie ever did ;-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

What the heck?

Who are you? Why would you ever write on my wall? Who do you think you are? Seriously?

Please, explain, I have no idea what you are referring to. David D. (Talk) 04:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Re

An ISBN for the published Virginia Quarters rules will be provided in due time.

When this happens, will you be on board?

Haizum 08:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant Color Commentary

By your contributions and own words on Kent Hovind's entry, I see that you dislike color commentary. Me too. The following comments are inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. They are considered color commentary.

"At that point, Ali G was able to cast doubt on Hovind's objections to evolution by asking his guest:"

"In response to Hovind's nervous objections to his method of proof,"

"Hovind's protestations of fecal innocence were unavailing."

These things read like a gossip column and need to be removed, immediately. I took some time and wrote an nPOV contribution, but Larvatus kept reverting it completely in favor of his own. Please help improve this entry. --Jason Gastrich 21:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed he added some stuff back. I'll have a closer look, can you believe we might even be in agreement here ;-) David D. (Talk) 21:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Haha. I knew miracles were possible. ; )--Jason Gastrich 21:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Greg Landry

I used that link as a main source for it and rewrote some parts of it when I first created it. I also used facts from 3 sources, a annon in DYK and a few sports cards, but some of it does look identical I agree. I know it's not a copyvio and tried not to make it as one. I rewrote some of the content right now. Thanks --Jaranda 02:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This is What Daycd is Really All About

This is what Daycd is really all about. He was responding to an absurd proposal that I had posted for another "holier than though" Wikipedian (Zoe), and swallowed it HOOK, LINE, and SINKER. Daycd, you get the 2005 Sucker of the Year Award! Congratulations!

Yes, I agree. We need to stick together if we are to rid the Wiki site of all these undesireables. I would propose that we start by putting blocks on people that we suspect of vandalism. If in doubt, BLOCK. I think we need to block for a year or more, especially if we feel that the person will have no potential to be a bona fide contributor. Also, we need to stop being nice to these people. Just go ahead and put a block on a person if in doubt, and be as rude as possible to discourage editing. Finally, and this is the most controversial, I think we should require some sort of testing to be done to make sure that a potential candidate has at least a certain intelligence quotient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.204 (talk • contribs)

Bravo. Lets get them and thrown them in jail too. Just out of interest, if you are a serious editor, and you seem to be, why don't you start a user account rather than editing from a AOL IP? David D. (Talk) 22:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason I don't register, Einstein, is that it is people like you who give this site a bad name. The above commentary was meant as a sarcastic response to what I see as the "holier than though" attitude prevalent in this project. I had no idea that my "straw man proposal" would be accepted hook, line and sinker by someone so easily. You get the 2005 Sucker of the Year Award! Congratulations! Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Zoe" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.117.10 (talk • contribs) who has also been posting as User:64.12.116.204

Mmm, you didn't recognise my sarcasm in response to your own? Oh well, but thanks for the award anyway. You seem to have a pretty bad attitude in this interaction. May be that is why you are anon posting here so you don't have to ruin your good user status? Certainly it would seem to be you that is giving wiipedia the bad name.
If you really think that your valid edits have been reverted and treated as vandalism mature discussion would be a much better way to go about resolving the issues you have with Zoe's reverts. Certainly i would back up Zoe's reverts if she is reverting an anon editor. Some anon editors may be making good edits, but many are not. Therefore, you should really thing about getting a user account. Unless, of course, you are just trying to hide something. In that case carry on. Oh by the way why don't you EVER sign your posts, it would help a lot if you really want to be taken seriously. David D. (Talk) 22:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
That's just great that he couldn't recognize your obvious sarcasm in response to his. No wonder he's afraid of there being an IQ requirement to contribute. ;-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking that but didn't like to point it out. I thought that might be getting a bit close to a direct insult. It's hilarious. Where do these contributors come from? David D. (Talk) 23:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
It is in fact a bit close to a direct insult, and I shall withhold myself from having a cookie before I go to bed tonight in penance. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
There you go. It's a hard life but try and enjoy your penance. A time to reflect.........is Exicornt a real word? LOL David D. (Talk) 23:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Need your input

Hey David, I hope you're well. Please come and post on the SAB's talk page. I'd like some people like you to contribute in the discussion about whether or not a mention and/or a link to my rebuttal should be in the SAB's entry. Right now, unfortunately for Misplaced Pages and all of thinking, humankind, all we have is Dave Horn (WarriorScribe) and Mark Bilbo's input. Since they can't see past their nose on matters that need objectivity, perhaps you and even some of your other friends can help. As you probably know, I'm an honest and sincere contributor to numerous wikipedia entries (new ones and old) and I'm interested in achieving a consensus (as long as the consensus isn't Horn and Bilbo . . . please) and following the rules. So far, all they have done is sidetracked the discussion, assumed bad faith, and launched attacks at me. Quite sad for them (and for the discussion). --Jason Gastrich 01:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"Unfortunately for Misplaced Pages and all of thinking, humankind...?" That's pretty funny stuff--almost as funny as any talk from Gastrich about "objectivity" or the level or quality of his participation. Check out his contributions page. If you select 500 notations per page, you can see that they go back only to the 21st, and there was quite a bit of activity during the few days before Christmas. What kind of "objectivity" is needed to see phoniness in mere numbers as opposed to quality? Gastrich has discovered a method to up the numbers. Either the software allows that merely going to an "edit page" option and clicking "save" will tick another notch, or he simply puts in an extra space, changes a punctuation, or does something equally useless in most of the "contributions" that are then notched as soon as he clicks "save." It's also possible, given what has been said in the newsgroups and elsewhere, that Gastrich has people making "contributions" under his auspices, if you will.
Gastrich is whining because there is opposition to his use of Misplaced Pages as a personal soapbox and for free advertising. The section indicated is clearly intended to list "rebuttals" to the SAB, and his site, as he links it, does not link to a rebuttal. It links to a product for sale that presumes to be a rebuttal (and most of us whom have actually sampled and reviewed it know better). In other words, Gastrich is trying to use Misplaced Pages as a marketing tool and, specifically, to market his wares, and if he can put up the illusion that he's a "contributor" in good standing, so much the better. No one should be fooled. Gastrich isn't in this for the betterment of Misplaced Pages or "all of thinking, humankind." He's in it for the bucks. WarriorScribe 01:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
"...unfortunately for Misplaced Pages and all of thinking, humankind..." Really? Wow. I did not know I was that important! The fate of all humankind rests with me! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Mark K. Bilbo 02:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey! Me, too! Bungholio! Heh, heh...that was cool...!
And not so confidentially, but I'm having more than a little trouble allowing that Gastrich is any judge of what should and should not constitute "thinking humankind." Just take a look at his last "debate" with Doug Krueger, as well as the aftermath in the Peanut Gallery. WarriorScribe 03:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Gee, Brain. What are we going to do tonight? Mark K. Bilbo 04:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The same thing we do every night, Pinky... WarriorScribe 04:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Please do not feed the trolls

Horace Mann School

Stay off the horace mann page...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theblacklarl (talk • contribs)

If I don't make those changes someone else will. Try writing in a NPOV style and your edits will be fine. David D. (Talk) 04:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct voting

FYI:

Thanks for the update. Very interesting. David D. (Talk) 04:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. I find it quite saddening. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your support

Greetings Daycd,
I wish to offer my gratitude for supporting me on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with the final tally of 65/4/3. If you would ever desire my assistance in anything, or wish to give me feedback on any actions I take, feel free to let me know. Cheers! Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 08:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hovind and recent POV contribs

Hi David, I hope you're well. Dave Horn (WarriorScribe) has bullied his way into the Hovind article and is espousing his POV, again. I tried to nPOV the paragraphs, but he just reverts them. Perhaps you can come and increase the quality of the entry. I know you have cared about this sort of thing in the past. It's a shame when people like Horn, who care very little about Misplaced Pages, throw their weight around and try to ruin otherwise-decent articles that others have worked hard on. --Jason Gastrich 06:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)